Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17

Thread: Marines

  1. #1
    Senior Contributor JA Boomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Jul 07
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    974

    Marines

    First of all: I am in no way disrespecting the USMC, what they do, or who they are.

    I know the USMC is a total fighting force (air, land, and sea components) with the mantra that every single one of them no matter what rank, title, job, or task they have is a trained combat infantry Marine. But since they they rely on the USN for transportation anyways, would it not make more sense for:

    -Navy to continue to operate the ships the amphibious forces use for transportation / logistic.
    -Navy to take over fast jet operations (AV-8B, F/A-18).
    -Army to have "marine" divisions" which would deploy as the Marines do currently and operate the vehicles and helicopters.

    Now I realize that the Marines have a long and proud tradition in the US. And I know the USMC is not going anywhere anytime soon. However, hypothetically speaking, would the above force utilization make more sense?

    I've thought about unified commands (like we've have/had in Canada) where the AF operates anything that flies, and I can see how that type of utilization would not be successful for a force as large and diverse as the US military. But if the US armed forces were completely restructured (without institutional biases), would the USMC remain or would a structure similar to what I have outlined be more efficient?

    Looking forward for any thoughts .. and again, I have nothing but respect for the USMC, I am simply curious.

  2. #2
    Regular
    Join Date
    07 Mar 15
    Location
    Pensacola
    Posts
    38
    The Marines dating back to the Royal Navy were originally to serve on ships. They protected the officers and were used to great effect in ship to ship action when boarding. Between world wars they had justify their existence and became specialists in over the beach invasions. That has become their main claim to fame. Of course you can ignore the huge invasions over the beach conducted by the Army in WWII. Think SW Pacific, Philippines, Okinawa, North Africa, Normandy, Sicily, Italy, and southern France.

  3. #3
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by JA Boomer View Post
    I've thought about unified commands (like we've have/had in Canada) where the AF operates anything that flies, and I can see how that type of utilization would not be successful for a force as large and diverse as the US military. But if the US armed forces were completely restructured (without institutional biases), would the USMC remain or would a structure similar to what I have outlined be more efficient?
    The reason why it works for us is because we're regiment based. The Americans are division based. They need to buy things on mass that would fit all the divisions that they have and they have priorities to where they want to spend their moneys. The Army would therefore start thinking the mass warfare between large scale foes, ie the Chinese and Russian armies. They may have a side thought about the smaller more faster intervention force but they would be thinking airborne rather than marines.

    The same with us. We were supposed to have a Canadian Marine Regiment and an Airborne Regiment. Instead, now, we have CSOR to do both jobs and CSOR was built around 3 RCR's jump coy. It's not a good compromise. To lose the Marines to the army would mean the loss of some very necessary capabilities simply because the army and the marines think different because they have different missions.
    Chimo

  4. #4
    Senior Contributor JA Boomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Jul 07
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    974
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    The reason why it works for us is because we're regiment based. The Americans are division based. They need to buy things on mass that would fit all the divisions that they have and they have priorities to where they want to spend their moneys. The Army would therefore start thinking the mass warfare between large scale foes, ie the Chinese and Russian armies. They may have a side thought about the smaller more faster intervention force but they would be thinking airborne rather than marines.

    The same with us. We were supposed to have a Canadian Marine Regiment and an Airborne Regiment. Instead, now, we have CSOR to do both jobs and CSOR was built around 3 RCR's jump coy. It's not a good compromise. To lose the Marines to the army would mean the loss of some very necessary capabilities simply because the army and the marines think different because they have different missions.
    Thanks OoE. I was thinking because the Army has infantry, cavalry, armored, mountain, and airborne divisions already; different divisions with different roles and capabilities. Giving them the marine divisions wouldn't be that difficult. But I see your point.
    Last edited by JA Boomer; 06 May 16, at 03:11.

  5. #5
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    8,367
    Quote Originally Posted by Shinytop View Post
    The Marines dating back to the Royal Navy were originally to serve on ships. They protected the officers and were used to great effect in ship to ship action when boarding. Between world wars they had justify their existence and became specialists in over the beach invasions. That has become their main claim to fame. Of course you can ignore the huge invasions over the beach conducted by the Army in WWII. Think SW Pacific, Philippines, Okinawa, North Africa, Normandy, Sicily, Italy, and southern France.
    Wow, How wrong can you get in one post.

    The USMC has been doing amphibious ops since March 3d 1776.

    Amphibious operations are part of out charter "To secure advance naval bases".

    Another part of our charter is develop TTPs and equipment for amphibious operations. Yes, the Army conducted more beach landings than the Marine Corps did. It makes sense. At the height of its time the Marine Corps has only had 6 Divisions. The Army landed 7 Armor Divisions, 14 Infantry Divisions and 2 Airborne Divisions at Normandy. But they were only able to do it because of the years spent by the Marine Corps developing the equipment, techniques, tactics and procedures for amphibious ops.

    We are also the Presidents "Firefighters" He can have us deployed to embassies, and other hotspots quickly(within 24hrs) without having to notify anyone.

    The Army wins wars Marines win battles. You need someone thinking at the Bn/Bde level. That knowledge would be lost if the Corps was integrated into the Army.

    It was in the 90s that the Corps was talking about and planning for the "3 block war". The Army laughed at the notion. What have we been doing for the last 10-15 years in the middle east?
    Its called Tourist Season. So why can't we shoot them?

  6. #6
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    8,367
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    The reason why it works for us is because we're regiment based. The Americans are division based. They need to buy things on mass that would fit all the divisions that they have and they have priorities to where they want to spend their moneys. The Army would therefore start thinking the mass warfare between large scale foes, ie the Chinese and Russian armies. They may have a side thought about the smaller more faster intervention force but they would be thinking airborne rather than marines.
    Where is the like button? Nailed it Sir
    Its called Tourist Season. So why can't we shoot them?

  7. #7
    Regular
    Join Date
    07 Mar 15
    Location
    Pensacola
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape View Post
    Wow, How wrong can you get in one post.

    The USMC has been doing amphibious ops since March 3d 1776.

    Amphibious operations are part of out charter "To secure advance naval bases".

    Another part of our charter is develop TTPs and equipment for amphibious operations. Yes, the Army conducted more beach landings than the Marine Corps did. It makes sense. At the height of its time the Marine Corps has only had 6 Divisions. The Army landed 7 Armor Divisions, 14 Infantry Divisions and 2 Airborne Divisions at Normandy. But they were only able to do it because of the years spent by the Marine Corps developing the equipment, techniques, tactics and procedures for amphibious ops.

    We are also the Presidents "Firefighters" He can have us deployed to embassies, and other hotspots quickly(within 24hrs) without having to notify anyone.

    The Army wins wars Marines win battles. You need someone thinking at the Bn/Bde level. That knowledge would be lost if the Corps was integrated into the Army.

    It was in the 90s that the Corps was talking about and planning for the "3 block war". The Army laughed at the notion. What have we been doing for the last 10-15 years in the middle east?
    Let the record show I never proposed integration of the Marines into the Army. But I have been snickering for years at the Marines amphibious specialist claims. I salute all my brothers in arms.

  8. #8
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by Shinytop View Post
    But I have been snickering for years at the Marines amphibious specialist claims.
    As of right now, they're the only ones who can do it. Simple questions of who gets seasick is not even asked in the army, at least not my army.
    Chimo

  9. #9
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,343
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape View Post

    Another part of our charter is develop TTPs and equipment for amphibious operations. Yes, the Army conducted more beach landings than the Marine Corps did. It makes sense. At the height of its time the Marine Corps has only had 6 Divisions. The Army landed 7 Armor Divisions, 14 Infantry Divisions and 2 Airborne Divisions at Normandy. But they were only able to do it because of the years spent by the Marine Corps developing the equipment, techniques, tactics and procedures for amphibious ops.

    Uhm.... The LST was invented by the British and given to the Americans in 1941 and first used (by US forces) to land Army troops. The famous LCPV/ Higgins boat copied the Japanese special naval landing force dropping ramp landing craft in 1941. Prior to WWII, most of the USMC amphibious experience was using launches to motor troops ashore in dribs and drabs not much different than the way troops were landed at Tripoli over a hundred years earlier. The first major test of the USMC amphibious theory was Deippe and it went sideways from the get go. The idea that the Army owes its amphibious success in WWII to the USMC is a non-starter.

    We are also the Presidents "Firefighters" He can have us deployed to embassies, and other hotspots quickly(within 24hrs) without having to notify anyone.
    Yup, if you have a small hot spot you need taken care of, send the marines.

    The Army wins wars Marines win battles. You need someone thinking at the Bn/Bde level. That knowledge would be lost if the Corps was integrated into the Army.
    Yeah, despite having more battalions and brigades than the USMC, the Army only thinks in terms of companies and divisions (sarcasm). NTC, JRTC... the Army has not neglected bn/bgd ops.

  10. #10
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,165
    To what the Gunny said, the US Marines spent the 1920s & 1930s developing the overall amphibious doctrine which was used by the US in WW II. The specific equipment used came from a variety of sources. The US Army planned amphibious operations to seize a port to unload...see OPERATION Torch. The USMC developed the doctrine to conduct and sustain operations across the shore.

    In the 1920s the Marines, under LTC Pete Ellis, developed the concept of Advanced Force Base which devolved into the Fleet Marine Force. The entire professional education system within the USMC between the wars worked on this. The Marines concentrated on War Plan Orange...a war in the Pacific requiring widespread amphibious capability. The Marines through the 1920s and 1930s held annual exercises that began with amphibious assaults. The Army sent observers but did not conduct anything like the corps did. The Army used the doctrine the Marines developed and built it up on a grander scale.

    As Gunny said, the Army wins wars. We plan and execute campaigns which result in an end state favorable to the nation. That is a Title 10 responsibility that we have. As a result we design, equip and train forces which can operate globally and sustain everyone in that theater. Yup, the Army is responsible for providing all of the Logistics support within a theater for all services. There may be some service specific items which each handles but the bulk is planned and executed under Army authority.

    With their Reserves mobilized, the Marines can field 4 divisions. But they rarely fight that way. As the Gunny stated they concentrate at battalion/brigade level because that is how they deploy and fight. And for them it is ALWAYS an integrated Infantry, Armor, Artillery, Support, and more importantly, Aviation, both rotary and fixed wing. The one star who commands a MEB OWNS all of those folks. We in the Army borrow them. And we do tend to think in divisions and corps...subordinate units are just building blocks within that overall construct.

    The bottomline is each has unique skill sets they bring to the fight. The are complimentary.

    The following is a Masters Thesis written by a Marine major attending the US Army Command and General Staff College about the development of amphibious doctrine. It is really quite good.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...t/1993/KMA.htm
    "The genius of you Americans is that you make no clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them we are missing." - Gamal Abdel Nasser

  11. #11
    Senior Contributor Stitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Nov 06
    Location
    Patterson, CA
    Posts
    3,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    As Gunny said, the Army wins wars.
    "The Marines win battles, the Army wins wars".
    "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

  12. #12
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,165
    "...and the Navy makes movies."
    "The genius of you Americans is that you make no clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them we are missing." - Gamal Abdel Nasser

  13. #13
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    2,929
    The Marines have to get back to the basics. Oh, and ditch those damn cell phones now. I did like the part of a sailor checking their Facebook page out in the middle of the ocean and allowing the location to be pinged if someone were interested.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/10/politi...ler/index.html

  14. #14
    Military Professional JCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Apr 05
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    239
    GPS is receive only, the GPS chip itself does not radiate.

    No cell towers in the middle of the ocean. If the Sailor was getting a signal, then the battle group was in visual range of the shore. Now, if she was access Facebook from a ship's UNCLASS computer, then she could give away their position. Gen Neller had some very good points, but he's not a SIGINT/ELINT guy.

  15. #15
    Senior Contributor Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    01 Aug 07
    Posts
    818
    Quote Originally Posted by JCT View Post
    GPS is receive only, the GPS chip itself does not radiate. No cell towers in the middle of the ocean. If the Sailor was getting a signal, then the battle group was in visual range of the shore. Now, if she was access Facebook from a ship's UNCLASS computer, then she could give away their position. Gen Neller had some very good points, but he's not a SIGINT/ELINT guy.
    If the vessel is within the signal range of shore-based cell-towers, then certain apps could be transmitting the GPS coordinates, velocity of travel, etc. to servers thousands of miles away via the cell-phone's data service. I regularly use Google Maps on my phone for my daily commute -- of course, I know the route(s) intimately down to my favorite potholes and traffic cameras, but I use Google Maps to detect congestion / accidents and make tactical decisions (because each day brings a new type of misery). The congestion information (i.e. location and velocity) is crowd-sourced by Google from everyone using the app (including me).

    That said, the military and security leadership have a choice: (a) try to crackdown on these technologies with more rules and punishments, or (b) embrace the technologies and come up with appropriate defensive (ex scramblers) and offensive (ex jammers) measures that let their people have some conveniences and fun... but can quickly get serious when needed.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. What is the point of the Marines?
    By Tarek Morgen in forum The Field Mess
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 02 Jul 11,, 09:19
  2. Mattis on the Marines
    By Shek in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09 Jan 07,, 05:41
  3. Support Marines
    By Franco Lolan in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 14 Sep 06,, 22:41
  4. The Royal Marines
    By giggs88 in forum Multimedia & Jukebox room
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09 Nov 05,, 06:29
  5. history of the marines
    By tomas in forum Ancient, Medieval & Early Modern Ages
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 27 Aug 04,, 19:38

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •