The US Marine Corps - why?

[swerve]

The little diversion on the battleship thread got me thinking about the USMC. It's something of an oddity. Apart from a few countries which have consciously modelled their armed forces on those of the USA, whether sensible or not, other countries with marines have relatively small raiding or base defence forces (i.e. the traditional roles of marines), & maybe a (still relatively small) spearhead specialist amphibious assault force. Nobody else has a marine corps with its own air force, & the general solution to any perceived need for large-scale amphibious landing forces is to make sure some of the army has suitable training.

 

Since the USMC has, for the last 50 years, been used largely as just extra ground forces, what's the justification for its size? Why not hand the ground troops & helicopters over to the Army, & the fighters & transport aircraft to the air force & navy?

 

Also, how did it get so damn big?

 

 

Now I'll run & hide - incoming!

 

 

Bugger - Moderator - can you edit out my typo in the topic title?

(edit) Thanks

Edited July 2, 2005 by swerve

[CaptLuke]

Since the USMC has, for the last 50 years, been used largely as just extra ground forces, what's the justification for its size? Why not hand the ground troops & helicopters over to the Army, & the fighters & transport aircraft to the air force & navy?

 

Also, how did it get so damn big?

 

190206[/snapback]

 

For how did it get so big: WWII PTO. Lots of amphibious assaults done by the part of the US military that specialized in them.

 

For why not consolidate, let me give you a slightly different answer: the US has something like 15 intelligence agencies, 10-15 national police forces, and God knows how many bureaucracies that are nearly impossible to kill no matter how small their constituencies and ludicrous their mandates. With all this mess, why on earth would we start an efficiency drive by getting rid of the Marine Corps?

[Samson]

Kind of true, but if anybody ever tried to donw size or eliminate the MC they would be a bit unpopular....

 

[SCFalken]

Two-stage answer:

 

A ) Lesson learned during WWII. Having a large amphibious invasion capability was quite handy, and we already had one in the form of the USMC. So, despite President Truman, we kept it as it was.

 

B ) Now that Amphibious assault-landings versus capable foes is too expensive, it is still very handy to have loads of floating thugs to keep the barbs in line, as well as sieze specific terrain within range of the coast. Hence, MEU's. The Fixed wing aviation.....well, that's debatable, but the rotary squadrons are definately needed.

 

 

Unofficial 3rd answer: The Marines have a good propaganda machine.

 

 

Falken

Edited July 2, 2005 by SCFalken

[LeoTanker]

Kind of true, but if anybody ever tried to donw size or eliminate the MC they would be a bit unpopular....

 

190225[/snapback]

 

 

The Mujahedeen in Iraq are doing all they can to down size the USMC. But you are right, they are not very poppular among the american public!

[bigfngun]

The Mujahedeen in Iraq are doing all they can to down size the USMC. But you are right, they are not very poppular among the american public!

190232[/snapback]

 

If that was intended to be funny, I'm not laughing. If you were serious, I'm a little concerned.

[Bob B]

Here is why they are what they are:

 

http://www.ww2incolor.com/gallery/black_and_white/ww2_156

 

Who ya going to call....

 

Edited July 2, 2005 by Bob B

[Kurt L]

The funniest quote on this is from a foreign officer discussing Marine Aviation: "You mean that your Navy's Army has its own Air Force"?

 

The Marines have a very powerful political lobby. Ex-Marines are a justifiably proud group that continue to identify with and support the Corps. This includes voters and members of congress.

 

For many years I thought that it was an unnecessary waste of money for the US to field two separate Armies, one of which we call the Marine Corps. I now think it is useful to have the Marines to keep the Army honest. The Marines have always paid more attention to the basics of ground combat and have generally avoided getting caught up in every fad to come along.

 

Perhaps we should try the same thing in other areas. I suspect the Air Force would take ground support a lot more seriously if the Army had its own ground attack planes.

[Ken Estes]

Here is why they are what they are:

 

http://www.ww2incolor.com/gallery/black_and_white/ww2_156

 

Who ya going to call....

 

 

190284[/snapback]

Or, as SecNav Forrestal said as he watched the flag on Suribachi from the force flagship offshore, "this means a Marine Corps for the next 500 years."

 

The US Marine Corps is a creation of WWII, being largely ships' police and naval infantry before that. Afterward, a large corps to match the large army/navy/air force for Pax Americana continued mostly unquestioned. The statutory force structure was a result of service paranoia, and the true reason for the USMC continuing unmolested was its readiness to go, now matched in some respects by more elements of the army, since the garrisons in Germany, CONUS strategic reserve, are not focused on the Fulda Gap.

 

Now that you have it, who is going to recruit more personnel to man the 3 divisions and 3 aircraft wings, etc. if you try to go without the USMC....and in the current recruiting climate??

Edited July 2, 2005 by Ken Estes

[A2Keltainen]

Perhaps we should try the same thing in other areas.  I suspect the Air Force would take ground support a lot more seriously if the Army had its own ground attack planes.

 

Well, if USA has the USMC which is part of the USN, then why not organize the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions into the USAC (United States Air Corps) and make them part of the USAF? Another possibility is to go the other way, and convert the USMC into two US Army seaborne divisions. I bet the last alternative would be REALLY popular among the Marines.

[Wyvern75]

The Air Force tried that in the late '40s. They were wanting 5 Divisions of Airborne and all the Anti-Aircraft Artillery units. The Army was able to stop this as part of the Key West agreements which is part of the Admirals revolt when the Air Force was trying to get control of the Navy's Aircraft Carriers and airplanes.

 

 

Well, if USA has the USMC which is part of the USN, then why not organize the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions into the USAC (United States Air Corps) and make them part of the USAF? Another possibility is to go the other way, and convert the USMC into two US Army seaborne divisions. I bet the last alternative would be REALLY popular among the Marines.

190300[/snapback]

[Brasidas]

The Mujahedeen in Iraq are doing all they can to down size the USMC. But you are right, they are not very poppular among the american public!

190232[/snapback]

 

The terrorists in Iraq are about as effective as a Division 96 hour pass with an open bar and fast cars in reducing the size of the USMC, IOW not very.

 

Terrorists have never been very popular with the American public LT.

[swerve]

Now that you have it, who is going to recruit more personnel to man the 3 divisions and 3 aircraft wings, etc. if you try to go without the USMC....and in the current recruiting climate??

 

Ken,

 

I didn't ask hy not disband the USMC, I asked why not divide its assets & manpower between the other services. Do you think marines would quit en masse rather than become a trooper in an army amphibious division, or part of a navy or air force fighter squadron?

[Brasidas]

Ken,

 

I didn't ask hy not disband the USMC, I asked why not divide its assets & manpower between the other services. Do you think marines would quit en masse rather than become a trooper in an army amphibious division, or part of a navy or air force fighter squadron?

190331[/snapback]

 

I definitely would have.

[Ken Estes]

Ken,

 

I didn't ask hy not disband the USMC, I asked why not divide its assets & manpower between the other services. Do you think marines would quit en masse rather than become a trooper in an army amphibious division, or part of a navy or air force fighter squadron?

190331[/snapback]

 

I understand, but even if you did effect such a transfer, sustaining it would call for considerably better recruiting than the other services seem able to do. As to the second, I suspect Bras has it right, but if it were to be handled with some sensitivity [an appalling notion] by DOD, you might create something like the French army did with the marine divisions from the old colonial infantry, who have at least partially kept their traditions alive in the 9th Marine Division, officers referring to their troops as Les Moissons [sp?] etc. Cheers, Ken

[TSJ]

The Marines are still around because any of its active duty units can pack up and be gone in 48 hours. That includes its aviation units. The Army can't necessarily do that. No crticism of the Army is implied here. They have a different mission.

 

I won't get into the amounts and quality of the equipment differences between the Marines and the Army. It causes too much hate and dissention within the ranks.

Edited July 2, 2005 by TSJ

[CaptLuke]

There's an implicit assumption that eliminating a Marine Corps per se would cut overhead, but I'm not sure I buy that.

 

The Army is becoming pretty top heavy: add three divisions to it and that's probably a corps HQ and God knows how many additional generals at the Pentagon.

 

Has anybody bothered to run numbers on the overhead of a three division slice of the US Army vs. the USMC? I wouldn't just assume that a stand alone USMC comes out as less efficient.

 

BTW: I love that "You mean your Navy's Army has its own Air Force?" quote. Classic.

[JOE BRENNAN]

Re; Kurt L: "Perhaps we should try the same thing in other areas. I suspect the Air Force would take ground support a lot more seriously if the Army had its own ground attack planes."

 

I think this quote illustrates a difference. Marine air, fixed wing tacair esp., will more completely merge with the Navy's under current plans. This is a good idea, reduces duplication and doesn't offend tradition, since the the two air arms have always been partly merged anyway (in areas of training and procurement) and have often fought as one going way back (Guadalcanal, off the carriers later in WWII, etc.). They should be one Naval tacair force with nominal personnel-only distinctions and it's where they are headed.

 

Army fixed wing OTOH would tend aircraft dedicated to single roles where it is in fact possible for them to fill multiple ones, bad idea. The Army and Marines do mainly the same basic thing on the ground in all real wars of the last 55yrs, and most forseeable ones. However Marine infantry is not focused on just one infantry role so as to force the Army to have duplicative infantry to fill other infantry roles. Rather they are mainly additive, and US clearly doesn't have too much total infantry IMO. A dedicated Army CAS air force would require a dedicated BAI deep strike air force whereas in reality one tacair force can do all those things (as for example Marine air does and has done all, check out their operational profile in either OIF or Korea), so either requiring more planes, or being weaker at each mission with a given set of planes.

 

Plus tradition matters. Upsetting the tradition of Marines is a real loss. Whereas establishing new duplicative arms has no value in tradition, in fact there will be inevitable learn by mistakes process that costs. And for air arms, the AF and Naval services' tacair already provide reality checks on each other.

 

Relating back to the other thread, the only time IMO Marine/Army ground separateness becomes really wasteful is when the Marines seek big $ procurement, and seek the Navy to pay for related things, for high end amphib capabilities unlikely to ever be used (as they haven't been for decades) with differentness from the Army mission, looking over shoulder to discussions like this thread, as one motivation. If the Marine Corps is accepted for what it actually is, a de facto second Army with an expeditionary warfare and "middle infantry" emphasis, with own approach to various things coming out of valuable traditions, it's in the 'not broken so don't fix it' category. Duplication in principal should be eliminated, but Marine/Army ground duplication is a relatively benign form of it, and has the value of MC's successful traditions.

 

Joe

Edited July 2, 2005 by JOE BRENNAN

[BansheeOne]

I believe the full quote is: "The Army of your Navy has an Air Force that's bigger than ours."

[tanker_karl]

you might create something like the French army did with the marine divisions from the old colonial infantry, who have at least partially kept their traditions alive in the 9th Marine Division, officers referring to their troops as Les Moissons [sp?] etc.

190390[/snapback]

 

Minor Corrections :

 

The 9th Marine Division (9e DIMa - Division d'Infanterie de Marine) *morphed* into the 9th Light Armored Marine Brigade (9e BLBMa - Brigade Légère Blindée de Marine) in 1999.

 

*Marsoins* is the nickname for marine infantry troops, *Bigors* is the nickname for marine artillery troops, non-marine troops (except the Foreign Legion) being nicknamed *Biffins*. Other traditions include for instance the Golden Anchor, the Marine Troops Logo, the Hymn,...

 

Regards.

Edited July 2, 2005 by tanker_karl

[Guest aevans]

And the real answer is that the US has a marine Corps because the people want one. This is more due to public perception of Marine competence/professionalism than it is to any rational analysis. But there is also a bit of a beneficial circle going on here -- the public expects the Marine Corps to justify itself by doing well, and the Marine Corps responds by indeed doing well, reinforcing the public's expectations that it will.

[Ken Estes]

Minor Corrections :

 

The 9th Marine Division (9e DIMa - Division d'Infanterie de Marine) *morphed* into the 9th Light Armored Marine Brigade (9e BLBMa - Brigade Légère Blindée de Marine) in 1999.

 

*Marsoins* is the nickname for marine infantry troops, *Bigors* is the nickname for marine artillery troops, non-marine troops (except the Foreign Legion) being nicknamed *Biffins*. Other traditions include for instance the Golden Anchor, the Marine Troops Logo, the Hymn,...

 

Regards.

190416[/snapback]

Thanks TK, I will add that to my files. I had only heard the "Marsoins" in a telecast from a Bastille Day parade, and was not sure how it was spelled; is there a likely translation of Biffins? I rendered it 'ragmen' once but that is another colloquialism that maybe does not work, but certainly a perjorative is intended, no?

 

As to the other idea [Capt Luke] of less overhead in the USMC, that remains doubtful, given the excesses of personnel in the aviation side, which merely waves the 'safety' flag to get what it wants. I was always chagrined to see that the German Bundeswehr/Heer fielded 12+ divisions for the same endstrength as the USMC!

 

 

Ken

[Ken Estes]

Oh, I almost forgot; for swerve, why so many? I always tell my army acquaintances this: we need three marine divisions; two to photograph the one.

[CaptLuke]

As to the other idea [Capt Luke] of less overhead in the USMC, that remains doubtful, given the excesses of personnel in the aviation side, which merely waves the 'safety' flag to get what it wants. I was always chagrined to see that the German Bundeswehr/Heer fielded 12+ divisions for the same endstrength as the USMC! 

Ken

190457[/snapback]

 

The US Army takes about 50K active duty soldiers to field an active duty division (about 480K to field 10 divisions). The Marine corps number is about 60K (176K soldiers for 3 divisions).

 

This means that the Marines are fielding a division and an entire air wing for a 20% manpower premium over what it takes the Army to field a division. It's an over-simplified number, but I think it is consistent with lower overhead.

 

Also, if you take that 176K active duty marines number and divide by 12, the number of divisions you attribute to the Bundeswehr for the same manpower, that puts each division at less than 15,000 total strength including its entire corps support slice and army support slice, which would put each division around what, 10K people?

[BansheeOne]

Both the Bundeswehr and the USMC were bigger when the former fielded 12 divisions. Heer peace strength used to be 395,000 prior to reunification, so the share of one division would have been about 33,000.

 

Currently we have eight division "equivalents" for a total strength of, what, about 210,000? Though it should be noted that one of those is Army Forces Command which merely pools and hires out artillery and other support units to the "other" divisions. At least until the next "future Bundeswehr" structure comes around, which IIRC will bring down the total division number down to five but gives them back some of the support units, the rest to be pooled with the Air Mechanized Division (there's a logic in there somewhere. I guess.).