Why Marines?

[Cheetah]

Several replies, but not any serious ones.

Marines exist because their methods and doctrine contain options and abilities that the Army doesnt have.

Marines were meant to be shock troops to assault beachheads, survive and achieve the goal. As a whole, they are generally viewed as a higher trained force in comparison with your regular army infantry unit, on par (more or less) with the Army Rangers (another specialized unit).

The tradition of having marines is most prevalent in nations with large maritime histories. Again, it takes a different skill set to defend a ship effectively, and/or be able to assault a defended beach from the sea.

Now that is a very, very small synopsis on something you could probably write a whole dissertation to. So what you get out of that may vary.

So can I boil all this down to: the Marines are a separate branch because of history and tradition, and paratroopers and other specialised units came to late to the party to be their own branch?

Cause it really sounds to me like the Marines should just a an amphibious special unit within the Army, just like there are Rangers, Green Berets, etc.

Also, could you (or anyone else for that matter), give some comments to my follow-up question? Do you think the way the military is organised now is the best way, or can you see other ways that would be more optimal (feel free to define the military's objectives as you see fit)?

 

[RedRalph]

For what it is worth (and I am loath to bring this up), but the USMC is under the department of the Navy. The Commandant of the Marine Corps answers to the Secretary of the Navy and PROBABLY the Chief of Naval Operations as well. Please do not make a habit of bringing this up, though.

Oh, I didn't know that, I thought the USMC was completely seperate from the USN. Do marines in general (not just US) have similar status? Like the Russian, Chinese marines? Cheers for the response both of my rightist foes.

 

[Cheetah]

For what it is worth (and I am loath to bring this up), but the USMC is under the department of the Navy. The Commandant of the Marine Corps answers to the Secretary of the Navy and PROBABLY the Chief of Naval Operations as well. Please do not make a habit of bringing this up, though.

Oh. So there are only three branches then, but we're supposed to follow a "Don't ask, and if you do, the answer is four" rule?

Guess I can accept that.

Edit: Bah. Wikipedia lists FIVE actually: Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force and Coast Guard.

So how many is it? And still, why the Marines? And now also, why the Coast Guard?

 

[bhsup]

Well, it's...

Think of it as the Department of the Navy having TWO branches. The USN and the USMC. I guess.

The Coast Guard used to be under the Department of Transportation except during times of war, when it was transferred to the Department of the Navy. After Sept. 11th, it became a part of Homeland Security IIRC.

 

[Cheetah]

Alright, let's forget the Coast guard for now then. Or I'll be forced to consider the customs and police as well I'm afraid.

Hmm... so we have:

US Armed Forces = Department of Defence
then
1. Department of Army
1a. Army
2. Department of Navy
2a. Navy
2b. Marines
3. Department of Air Force
3a. Air Force
3b. Some name for Nuclear command or whoever is in charge of WMDs?

That's how it is?

 

[Cutlass]

The Coast Guard is a law enforcement and public safety organization that is structured like a military organization, and can be attached to the military as needed. But the military aspects are secondary to the main reason it exists.

 

[GinandTonic]

Alright, let's forget the Coast guard for now then. Or I'll be forced to consider the customs and police as well I'm afraid.

Hmm... so we have:

US Armed Forces = Department of Defence
then
1. Department of Army
1a. Army
2. Department of Navy
2a. Navy
2b. Marines
3. Department of Air Force
3a. Air Force
3b. Some name for Nuclear command or whoever is in charge of WMDs?

That's how it is?

Doesnt the army have a small airforce under it's command? Doesnt the Airforce have some equivalent of the RAF regiment?

 

[Aegis]

So can I boil all this down to: the Marines are a separate branch because of history and tradition, and paratroopers and other specialised units came to late to the party to be their own branch?

Cause it really sounds to me like the Marines should just a an amphibious special unit within the Army, just like there are Rangers, Green Berets, etc.

The USMC is much larger than the Rangers, Green Berets, plus whatever other units you want to include, combined. All you would be doing is shifting the controlling organization from the Navy to the Army, so what would the point be? It would be a waste of time, resources, and piss off an awful lot of people.

If it's not broken, don't try to fix it.

 

[bhsup]

http://www.aviation.army.mil/about.html

Airplanes The Army does operate approximately 450 airplanes. In the Army, the term “fixed wing” aircraft is used to refer to airplanes (as opposed to “rotary wing” a.k.a. helicopters). The fixed wing aircraft are employed in a variety of support roles. With few exceptions these are non-combat civil aircraft, generally maintained by contractors. This paragraph is the only reference in this summary to the Army fixed wing fleet.

The Air Force may have a small commando forces like the other branches, but I don't think they have an actual regimental or brigade ground unit.

 

[MobBoss]

So can I boil all this down to: the Marines are a separate branch because of history and tradition, and paratroopers and other specialised units came to late to the party to be their own branch?

Branch is a confusing term to many, because branch is also used inter-service, in example, to refer to the different branches within the Army itself.

The marines are a seperate service not only because of history and tradition, but also because of their specialized capabilities.

Cause it really sounds to me like the Marines should just a an amphibious special unit within the Army, just like there are Rangers, Green Berets, etc.

It wouldnt fit well within the Navy to depend upon Army assets to help guard its fleet.

Also, could you (or anyone else for that matter), give some comments to my follow-up question? Do you think the way the military is organised now is the best way, or can you see other ways that would be more optimal (feel free to define the military's objectives as you see fit)?

I think the way the US military is currently organized is pretty darn good. Its very effective at what it does: move large amounts of men and material quickly, and blows stuff up real good. However, it is indeed big, and being big, can sometimes be inefficient.

The only thing I would add/expand on in the future would be to reflag NASA as more of a military space command, because with the advancements we are seeing in the civil sector, its only a matter of time when 'space' becomes an extra leg on that earth/air/water service division.

 

[bhsup]

Btw.... just for another inter-service dig

We stole the eagle from the Air Force, anchor from the Navy, and the rope from the Army. And on the seventh day while God rested, we overran his perimeter and stole the Globe and we've been running the whole show ever since.

 

[warpus]

Who the hell is God

 

[bhsup]

God is on the right.

 

[MobBoss]

Hey, I like marines...but they are indeed called 'jarheads' for reason....

I hear when they give rifles to their recruits in training, the rifle has a little placard on the business end that says 'point towards enemy'.....hehe.

 

[Cheetah]

Branch is a confusing term to many, because branch is also used inter-service, in example, to refer to the different branches within the Army itself.

The marines are a seperate service not only because of history and tradition, but also because of their specialized capabilities.

Sorry to nitpick, but since you have many other specialised units, I can't see how that "specialised capablities" holds as an argument for it being a separate service.

It wouldnt fit well within the Navy to depend upon Army assets to help guard its fleet.

So... instead they just depend on another service? All is fine, as long as it's not the Army?

I think the way the US military is currently organized is pretty darn good. Its very effective at what it does: move large amounts of men and material quickly, and blows stuff up real good. However, it is indeed big, and being big, can sometimes be inefficient.

But don't you think it sounds funny when huge USMC units are used deep within land areas, like the deserts of Iraq or Afghanistan - which doesn't even have a coastline!

The only thing I would add/expand on in the future would be to reflag NASA as more of a military space command, because with the advancements we are seeing in the civil sector, its only a matter of time when 'space' becomes an extra leg on that earth/air/water service division.

Fair enough, but I guess you would have to split NASA into a civilian and a military organisation though.

But for instance, when space becomes more militarised, and bombardment may also be carried out from orbit or very high altitude, would there be a point in having the Air Force around? Or would it be better to let there be three branches (Army, Navy, Space) with each having their own aircrafts? Oh, and if we ever build space ships, I guess the Marines would be needed on those ships too...

 

[Aegis]

Hey, I like marines...but they are indeed called 'jarheads' for reason....

Only the dumb ones are called that. By other Marines, at least.

I hear when they give rifles to their recruits in training, the rifle has a little placard on the business end that says 'point towards enemy'.....hehe.

And I hear that recruits in the Army can hold up a widdle yellow card when they're too stwessed out by the Dwill Sergeants and have to be given a widdle bweak!

Can you guess which one of those is true?

It is true that Claymore Mines have "This side towards Enemy" printed/etched into them, but not just the Marines use those. =oP

 

[bhsup]

All joking aside, salutes all around to ALL of our armed forces! USA # 1 !!!

 

[Aegis]

@ Cheetah: I've addressed a few of your questions in my previous posts. =o)

But for instance, when space becomes more militarised, and bombardment may also be carried out from orbit or very high altitude, would there be a point in having the Air Force around? Or would it be better to let there be three branches (Army, Navy, Space) with each having their own aircrafts? Oh, and if we ever build space ships, I guess the Marines would be needed on those ships too...

You bet your ass they will.

 

[MobBoss]

Sorry to nitpick, but since you have many other specialised units, I can't see how that "specialised capablities" holds as an argument for it being a separate service.

/shrug. So you would run your military different....

But for myself, being a 23 year military man, I see great reason to have military units with specialised expertise at sea, and amphib assault, while having other military units specialized in other types of terrian.

Think of it as a cost vs benefit thing. By having specific training to fit specific roles found in conflct you save money and have greater effectiveness. If you tried some kind of all encompassing training to do what the army does plus what the marines do, you would have to drastically reduce the size of the military due to the expense.

So... instead they just depend on another service? All is fine, as long as it's not the Army?

You dont understand inter-service rivalry that well.

But don't you think it sounds funny when huge USMC units are used deep within land areas, like the deserts of Iraq or Afghanistan - which doesn't even have a coastline!

Simply because they arent being used in an amphib assault role doesnt mean they are not capable of doing that mission.

Not all mission requirements are the same. If we were fighting a much larger enemy with a larger, more capable, military, then there very well could be specific missions to which the marines would be uniquely qualified to run.

But thats not the current case in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

Fair enough, but I guess you would have to split NASA into a civilian and a military organisation though.

Or in light of commercial advancements, just drop the 'civilian' part of it all together.

But for instance, when space becomes more militarised, and bombardment may also be carried out from orbit or very high altitude, would there be a point in having the Air Force around? Or would it be better to let there be three branches (Army, Navy, Space) with each having their own aircrafts? Oh, and if we ever build space ships, I guess the Marines would be needed on those ships too...

Hence the term "Space Marines" eh?

Like I said, I dont have a crystal ball, but the only thing certain is that it will evolve.

 

[GenMarshall]

It seems now a days the Marines are filling the role traditionally filled by the Army. Making the army look like babysitters to the Marine's conquest.

Hence the term "Space Marines" eh?

You rang?