Need for Marines

[SEATJERKER]

...I believe the term is "espirit de corps", and it does stand for a special mindset of a human, although I was a flyboy, I very much considered a stint in the Marines, I opted to address the schooling aspects that the Air Force would cross train me into, wanted fire protection, said I was too light at 139 upon weigh in, but I could yank seats in, and out,...

...BUT to be a Marine does take a special person, their dedication to go anywhere, and do anything 365/24/7 has kept a lot of the wolves at bay for a very long time, They train themselves every second of every day, and it is their lives first, and foremost for the corps other then themself,...

...budget aside, supply lines aside,...

...just the core of their guidelines, and intenisty of their training hone them continuiously,...

"it's the 5 p's, perfect practice prevents pisspoor performance",..

...

[39mto39g]

The coast Guard has a job, guard the coast. The special forces all have a job,
The Marines job, along time ago was amphibious landings, we don't do that anymore. If you take that away from the Marines all you have left is a light infantry unit, Which the Army has plenty of.

You lost me on the "bBettle ranches " Don't know what that is?


SJ
Same can be said for any light infantry unit in the Army. The Marines are just guys like any other guys.

Ron

[Keith_Hixson]

Ron,

I think what you are saying is:

We need what the Marines do! But do we need it organized under the Navy, and called the Marines?

My question to you Ron, is if we need the What they do why would it be important to shift them around to another branch of service? Why not leave them where they are? Or, do you think it would make things more efficient to reorganize the whole military scenario?

Just thinking

Keith :cd:

[39mto39g]

The point was that we don't do what the Marines do, (Amphibious landings) anymore, Any of the Armys light infantry units do the same thing that the Marines do know.
Some things in life you like a lot, eg. Jeep, SR-71 but just don't need anymore because we don't do what they were made to do, anymore.
The Marines are just another light infantry unit with a budjet for a seperate military classification.
The Airforce used to be part of the Army until there was a need for them to split off, The Marines were part of the Navy until there was a need for them to split off, The need is no longer there.
Yes we need what the Marines do right now, but the Army has been doing this job for a long time and is much better set up to do light infantry T&S.

Ron

[Keith_Hixson]

Ron,

I think I understand your basic premise but, It's not going to happen in our lifetime.

You know that Marine mystic etc., "from the halls of Montezuma."
We'll have the Marines around for a few more decades I can guarantee that.

Keith


P.S. Ya gotta love that Marine Hymn! Sends chills down the back of a stoic marble statue.

[frisco-kid]

First off, good post. I'm of the opinion to keep the Marines as they are. Yes, these days they are basically in the same role as our light infantry units, but it's nice to have that additional amphibious assault experience if needed. Just because it hasn't been used for awhile, doesn't make it obsolete. The combat jump made by the 173rd Airborne Brigade in this current war was the first one made in decades, but it was good to have a unit that could do it when needed.

Another reason, for me anyway, is keeping their tradition and reputation to this country and the rest of the world alive. I, for one, was sorry to see the 101st Airborne Division make the transition into the 101st Air Assault Division. To me, it made it lose alot of it's uniqueness and elite unit status. During VN the 1st Cav was already utilizing [pioneering] this type of warfare, and several other smaller units had their version of it also. So, even though we weren't doing alot of Airborne Assaults at the time, I don't think they should have changed them from an Airborne unit. My personal opinion, and maybe alot of it is based on tradition and sentiment instead of practicality.

Besides, Bud. If you did away with the Marines, who would dance with the sailors while at sea ? Who would be the Police Force for the Navy ? Since there's only one Airborne Division left [the 82nd], it won't be paratroopers. I guess it'll have to be the 4th Infantry Division . There's plenty of Infantry Divisions around.

Be safe at work, my friend.

[39mto39g]

I guess I could just say it all over again but then we would be beating the old dead horse.
Any possible Amphibious landing, that the US would most likely never make again, Could be handled by Rangers and Seals.
I live in a world of tradition, In the fire service, Change is always hampered by 200 years of tradition.

Hears an Idea, Don't call them the Army or Marines anymore,
Call our Military, Military.

So far the only valid argument that has been presented is, I think, by Seascamp,,,, "rapid unsupported deep strike capability of the USMC is at about 300 km from the beachhead"
Thats not exactly true. I read somewhere that the Rangers and seals both increased there in-land operational responce. Seals now can go in-land with the Rangers 50 miles and Rangers increased to 500 miles. But the Ranger and Seal units would be much smaller.

Sure the Marines look pretty in there uniforms and they have a catchy tune to dance to, but that don't chang the fact that theyr'e not needed anymore.

Anyone tell me one thing that the Marines do right now that any light infantry unit couldn't do.

Tradition is nice but time has come, I used to own a 1953 Ford, I don't own one now.

Ron

[wrbones]

Someone around here needs to learn a little more history. Amphibious landings have been made all over the worlkd during the last several decades. The Marine Corps doesn't get as much publicity as some might think. During the first Gulf War, just the threat of a small Marine amphibious landing kept several of Saddam's divisions busy and locked in place, so that the Army could make it's 'Left Hook' work, work well, and work effectively.

During WWII, there simply weren't enough Marines to go around. The Army was trained for the D-Day amphibious assault by the Marine Corps. As was previously stated, it took a three year training cycle for the Army to even begin to come up to speed, while the Marine Corps was performing the same function every few months all over the Pacific during the same time frame.

Any amphibious assault takes a helluva lot more than most people might think. It takes experience by all hands fist and foremost. Technologically and logistically it is a potential nightmare in the making.

The Marine Corps is still a part of the Navy. It has not as yet achieved the status of a separate branch of the Armed Forces. Only in very recent times has the Commandant of the Marine Corps been consulted in strategic meetings at the upper levels of the DOD. This alone emphasises the importance of the Marine Corps in strategic planning.

The Special Forces of the services are extremely small in size, specifically for small and special operations. They do not have the capability of the somewhat larger missions that the Marine Corps is currently capable of. The current Marine Corps MEU is a specially trained unit for similar, but somewhat larger special missions that other armed forces in the US cannot do due to logisitics and other considerations. An MEU is self supporting for a minimum of one month in any theatre of operations and can be there in less time than the Army or the Air Force.

Logistics, strategy and tactics are the major considerations at this time.

A minimum knowledge of current mission parameters and systems available to all of the Armed Services is neccessary. So, now it comes down to money. Refitting the weapons systems and divisions/units/naval operations and ships/Air Force operations and aircraft, and then re-formatting the logisitcs and supply systems of all of the Armed Services will be necessary to get rid of the Marine Corps. Not to mention re-working every bit of strategy and tactics that have been learned by the DOD during the last 60 years or more. Currently, with the Marine Corps, you do indeed get more bang for your buck, and you get it faster. T

This is a very costly proposition, getting rid of the Marine Corps. The cost can be measured not in the multiple billions of dollars, but in the multiple trillions of dollars.

The issue is much, much more complicated than just getting rid of the Marine Corps.

Will all of this change in the future? Who knows. We ain't there yet.

[the humper]

is just another "light infantry unit". One division holding off NINE gook divisions is pretty "light" work + bringing out the remnants of what was left of the poor guys (task force Faith) who were sacrificed, east of Chosin, by an idiotic CG by the name of Almond, who was taking orders directly from MacArthur. The CG was on Gen. O.P. Smiths' ass for not advancing quicker. Then when it hit the fan, NO ONE said a word about Smiths tactical moves. As the profile says, "been there, done that". And damn glad I'm here to represent the others who didn't make it AND they were all my friends as they were covering my ass!!!!!!!
SF
NC

[the humper]

the police department. If the rationale presented so far as to elimination of the Corps, then we could do away with the above, who clears the way for the fire dept. Or maybe just do away with the fire dept., also and just let it burn as we wouldn't need them. Or would the folks in CA. have a different opinion!!
SF
NC