Get Rid of the Marine Corps???

ThunderHorse

Verified Military
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
6,187
Location
Maricopa Basin
You mean the Ops officer at 73 Easting who also wanted to topple Saddam when he was a Major? And was pissed about it ever since? I read his book, know people who know him, some varying opinions. He's out there, for SURE.
 

Marauder06

Intel Enabler
Moderator
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
11,396
Location
CONUS
It's not a new idea. This proposal pops up every time we draw down our military forces after a conflict. I haven't done the math but I bet you that it costs the Marine Corps less money to recruit, train, and equip our 180,000 people than it would take the Army to do the same for 180,000 soldiers. Secondly, while these conversations usually turn into Marine infantry vs Rangers debates for some reason, I don't think that's our major contribution to the joint force. I know that's really surprising coming from an infantryman. To be honest though, I think the Marine Corps is well suited for war, but is superior to other forces in peacetime. The Army has fly away capabilities that can respond to certain crises but none that match the spectrum of options that the Navy-Marine Corps team afloat provides. Marine Expeditionary Units are the force of choice to quickly respond to non-combatant evacuations, disaster relief, and other humanitarian assistance operations. The combination of amphibious connectors like the LCU and LCAC with the V22 means that they don't require landing fields and air strips, although they can build them for follow on joint forces. I also think that while we produce really good infantrymen, our real crown jewels are our combat support troops. They certainly aren't grunts, but they have a sense of service pride, physical toughness, and combat mindset that I don't see as much of in the other services.

It would be interesting to see, especially when factoring in the re-enlistment rates of Marines comparative to other branches. It might be cheaper to produce Marines (and it might not be, I don't know...) but if you need to produce a lot more of them over "X" period of time, it might be a wash.

1605548199062.png
 

ThunderHorse

Verified Military
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
6,187
Location
Maricopa Basin
It would be interesting to see, especially when factoring in the re-enlistment rates of Marines comparative to other branches. It might be cheaper to produce Marines (and it might not be, I don't know...) but if you need to produce a lot more of them over "X" period of time, it might be a wash.

View attachment 36905

At what proficiency level? Marine Corps pipeline is longer by some significant measure. Just looking at IET+AIT type scenarios for Infantry Only.

USA Army Boot Camp 10 Weeks
Marine Corps Boot Camp 13 Weeks
______________________________________
Infantry AIT 12 Weeks (As of 2019)
Marine Corps SOI-ITR 8 Weeks

So Infantry Soldiers receive 22 Weeks of training before first unit assignment and Infantry Marines receive 21 weeks. Prior to 2018 pilot program that was adopted in 2019 for Infantry and Armor Branched Soldiers, Infantry Soldiers only received 14 weeks of training before going to a follow on school (airborne) or their first unit. Now the training an Infantry Soldier receives is comparable to an Infantry Marine. So in all actuality, previously you could probably say Marines were more expensive to train.

(Jesus, I wish Scouts had 22 weeks of training when I was in the Army, there'd have been a lot less fat ones showing up as privates when I was a PL)

Also in my experience, Marine Officers are more expensive to train compared to Army Counterparts. For everyone but Academy Grads (OCS+TBS+MOSQ) vs most Army folks ROTC (LDAC*+MOSQ).

*West Point Graduates fulfill the equivalent of the LDAC requirement but it's in the West Point Curriculum.
 
Last edited:

Devildoc

Verified Military
Joined
Nov 3, 2015
Messages
6,016
Location
Durham, NC
Great, until they get into a long haul situation.
Army Reserve did most of the Combat Support for the Marines in Iraq.

Unless things have changed the Corps would deploy with organic needs for 90s days; afterward, they need sustainment. They were built to be expeditionary and temporary; never designed for long-haul operations. The vast majority of long-haul gets there by MSC ships anywhoo, regardless of army or Marine....so you could say that most of the army sustainment came from the navy ;)

The army being the log train for the Marines is a relatively new thing.
 

LimaPanther

Recon Marine
Verified SOF
Joined
Dec 4, 2018
Messages
221
Having served both Marine Corps and Army, I have never seen any updated plans on how the Army would retake an island in the South Pacific. Any plans for the Navy to haul the Army for an assault? Does the Army and Navy plan on SEALs and SF to swim in to take the island? Really not going to be able to jump in. Guess better keep the Corps for what they are best trained for.

I think we have forgotten what each branch was trained to do and now want to all be door kickers. Back in my day, before SEALs, Marine Recon went in, either finning or by zodiacs, and did beach surveys looking for obstacles that would stop landing craft from bringing in the troops. UTD would blow up any obstacles. Recon would then move inland to recon the area forward. Remember we did without DEV GRP, Delta, MARSOC, etc. and seemed to kick ass.
 

Devildoc

Verified Military
Joined
Nov 3, 2015
Messages
6,016
Location
Durham, NC
As one who participated in the early days of Operation Restore Hope, I've got to disagree...nothing to do with the quality of troops or leadership, but the Navy-Marine Corp did a piss poor job of sustaining operations in Somalia in 92-early 93...

I am not going to speak for El jefe, but I think his point was from crisis-to-911-to-deployment, because a MAGTF or MEUSOC is always somewhere relatively nearby, there is a combined arms package ready to respond, and can, very quickly. That's how I read it, anyway.
 

ThunderHorse

Verified Military
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
6,187
Location
Maricopa Basin
I am not going to speak for El jefe, but I think his point was from crisis-to-911-to-deployment, because a MAGTF or MEUSOC is always somewhere relatively nearby, there is a combined arms package ready to respond, and can, very quickly. That's how I read it, anyway.
Combined Arms package is becoming less combined arms now though. All Tank Battalions have cased their colors. Reduced the number of Artillery Battalions and number of airframes in squadrons. The Corps is axing all of its tank battalions and cutting grunt units

Effectively a Marine Corps Landing team is now less capable unless we're creating US Army provisional tank companies to fulfill that role and attaching them to the Marine Corps for deployment? I know guys who've been in provisional rifle companies in the Marine Corps, but in my experience, provisional companies aren't stood up in the Army too often.
 

Marauder06

Intel Enabler
Moderator
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
11,396
Location
CONUS
Having served both Marine Corps and Army, I have never seen any updated plans on how the Army would retake an island in the South Pacific. Any plans for the Navy to haul the Army for an assault? Does the Army and Navy plan on SEALs and SF to swim in to take the island? Really not going to be able to jump in. Guess better keep the Corps for what they are best trained for.

I think we have forgotten what each branch was trained to do and now want to all be door kickers. Back in my day, before SEALs, Marine Recon went in, either finning or by zodiacs, and did beach surveys looking for obstacles that would stop landing craft from bringing in the troops. UTD would blow up any obstacles. Recon would then move inland to recon the area forward. Remember we did without DEV GRP, Delta, MARSOC, etc. and seemed to kick ass.

I just came from USARPAC and there were plans aplenty, and they are exercised every year. The Army has a rather extensive (albeit poorly-supported and on the chopping block) "navy" that could be used, if it had a higher priority: Save the Army’s 'Navy'.
 

Devildoc

Verified Military
Joined
Nov 3, 2015
Messages
6,016
Location
Durham, NC
Combined Arms package is becoming less combined arms now though. All Tank Battalions have cased their colors. Reduced the number of Artillery Battalions and number of airframes in squadrons. The Corps is axing all of its tank battalions and cutting grunt units

Effectively a Marine Corps Landing team is now less capable unless we're creating US Army provisional tank companies to fulfill that role and attaching them to the Marine Corps for deployment? I know guys who've been in provisional rifle companies in the Marine Corps, but in my experience, provisional companies aren't stood up in the Army too often.

Yeah, I should have specified that I wasn't talking about armor; that's never been organic to a MEU or MAGTF. Heavy armor should not be part of a BLT; but that's just my anachronistic opinion.
 

Devildoc

Verified Military
Joined
Nov 3, 2015
Messages
6,016
Location
Durham, NC
I just came from USARPAC and there were plans aplenty, and they are exercised every year. The Army has a rather extensive (albeit poorly-supported and on the chopping block) "navy" that could be used, if it had a higher priority: Save the Army’s 'Navy'.

I read that of the hundreds of boats on their rolls, they have few that can traverse the ocean without significant manning and maintenance. I don't know how true it is or isn't. They need it; ostensibly the Corps needs it. Only so much forward-staging you can do, and 98% of the rest of the log train travels by sea.
 

ThunderHorse

Verified Military
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
6,187
Location
Maricopa Basin
Yeah, I should have specified that I wasn't talking about armor; that's never been organic to a MEU or MAGTF. Heavy armor should not be part of a BLT; but that's just my anachronistic opinion.

Prior to cutting the tanks, I had numerous friends deploy as part of the BLT. Usually, a platoon of tanks was attached to an MEU for that purpose.
 

DA SWO

SOWT
Verified SOF
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
9,773
Location
San Antonio Texas
It's not a new idea. This proposal pops up every time we draw down our military forces after a conflict. I haven't done the math but I bet you that it costs the Marine Corps less money to recruit, train, and equip our 180,000 people than it would take the Army to do the same for 180,000 soldiers. Secondly, while these conversations usually turn into Marine infantry vs Rangers debates for some reason, I don't think that's our major contribution to the joint force. I know that's really surprising coming from an infantryman. To be honest though, I think the Marine Corps is well suited for war, but is superior to other forces in peacetime. The Army has fly away capabilities that can respond to certain crises but none that match the spectrum of options that the Navy-Marine Corps team afloat provides. Marine Expeditionary Units are the force of choice to quickly respond to non-combatant evacuations, disaster relief, and other humanitarian assistance operations. The combination of amphibious connectors like the LCU and LCAC with the V22 means that they don't require landing fields and air strips, although they can build them for follow on joint forces. I also think that while we produce really good infantrymen, our real crown jewels are our combat support troops. They certainly aren't grunts, but they have a sense of service pride, physical toughness, and combat mindset that I don't see as much of in the other services.
Bold face part.
Standard argument that ignores:
Navy providing medical services.
Air Force, Army, and Navy doing most of the weapons acquisitions for the Marines.
Plus a lot of other small support functions the other services provide, usually at no cost.
Put those costs into the Corps budget, then tell me how efficient you are.
 

Ranger Psych

Ranger
Verified SOF
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
3,981
Location
Keeping my hatchet sharp in the PNW
Bold face part.
Standard argument that ignores:
Navy providing medical services.
Air Force, Army, and Navy doing most of the weapons acquisitions for the Marines.
Plus a lot of other small support functions the other services provide, usually at no cost.
Put those costs into the Corps budget, then tell me how efficient you are.


Hell, we can pump the brakes on that whole cost argument with two airframes.

V-22
F-35B
 

Teufel

Force Recon
Verified SOF
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
4,565
Location
Tun Tavern
Great, until they get into a long haul situation.
Army Reserve did most of the Combat Support for the Marines in Iraq.
That’s how the joint force works. A bridging force provides the GCC with a 60-120 day solution while the other services mobilize their forces. The Marines aren’t supposed to be a long haul solution.
 

Teufel

Force Recon
Verified SOF
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
4,565
Location
Tun Tavern
It would be interesting to see, especially when factoring in the re-enlistment rates of Marines comparative to other branches. It might be cheaper to produce Marines (and it might not be, I don't know...) but if you need to produce a lot more of them over "X" period of time, it might be a wash.

View attachment 36905
It’s a good point. The Marine Corps is actually designed to be mostly populated with first term enlistees. We force people out all the time. I think we are the only service who culls our company grade officers. We board all our officers between O2 and O3 and force out the bottom quarter to third depending on the year.
 

Teufel

Force Recon
Verified SOF
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
4,565
Location
Tun Tavern
At what proficiency level? Marine Corps pipeline is longer by some significant measure. Just looking at IET+AIT type scenarios for Infantry Only.

USA Army Boot Camp 10 Weeks
Marine Corps Boot Camp 13 Weeks
______________________________________
Infantry AIT 12 Weeks (As of 2019)
Marine Corps SOI-ITR 8 Weeks

So Infantry Soldiers receive 22 Weeks of training before first unit assignment and Infantry Marines receive 21 weeks. Prior to 2018 pilot program that was adopted in 2019 for Infantry and Armor Branched Soldiers, Infantry Soldiers only received 14 weeks of training before going to a follow on school (airborne) or their first unit. Now the training an Infantry Soldier receives is comparable to an Infantry Marine. So in all actuality, previously you could probably say Marines were more expensive to train.

(Jesus, I wish Scouts had 22 weeks of training when I was in the Army, there'd have been a lot less fat ones showing up as privates when I was a PL)

Also in my experience, Marine Officers are more expensive to train compared to Army Counterparts. For everyone but Academy Grads (OCS+TBS+MOSQ) vs most Army folks ROTC (LDAC*+MOSQ).

*West Point Graduates fulfill the equivalent of the LDAC requirement but it's in the West Point Curriculum.
Most Marine billets are manned at one rank below the Army. Squad leaders are supposed to be Sergeants, not SSGTs like the Army for example. They are usually Corporals though. We also have the lowest officer to enlisted ratio (7.7 to 1 vs roughly 4 to 1) of all the services.
 
Last edited:

Teufel

Force Recon
Verified SOF
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
4,565
Location
Tun Tavern
Bold face part.
Standard argument that ignores:
Navy providing medical services.
Air Force, Army, and Navy doing most of the weapons acquisitions for the Marines.
Plus a lot of other small support functions the other services provide, usually at no cost.
Put those costs into the Corps budget, then tell me how efficient you are.
Again this is how the joint force is supposed to work. Why duplicate acquisition efforts?
 
Top