Do you want an order of battle for the logistics units, or what?
If the Marines’ logistical system is so efficient, why shouldn’t the Army copy it?
Their entire structure is purpose-designed. They don’t have as many heavy weapons as the Army, nor vehicles. Their supply chain originates from ships rather than from giant cargo planes across the world.
The army was designed to operate in a fulda gap scenario where they’d be falling back into their own supply lines. So it doesn’t matter that they have a shitload of vehicles that use gas engines that need more fuel than their diesel equivelants, or that they’re so stacked with heavy artillery. Operating on minimal supply as an expeditionary unit is not part of their mission.
The Marines were built from the ground up to be able to function that way. They have fewer heavy weapons, their units carry more of their supply organically, their supply train is less reliant on friendly airspace and long runways, their source of resupply is generally closer (off shore rather than the closest military base), more care is given in their operational planning to supply issues because it’s expected they’ll need to do more with less.
A side by side comparison of the two is what is needed. Also any historic incidents of the modern USMC actually demonstrating the qualities you are ascribing to them.
Maybe; it’s just that I can’t see the downside to leanness and efficiency. These are virtues that should be implemented, with requisite adjustments, by every branch of the military. Just because they don’t have to be, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t.
An honest question. Do you really not understand the general capabilities and the differences of the Army and the Marine Corps, and how they complement each other? Because none of this is new. It’s been the construct since WWII and continues to this day.
Or are you just angry?
I’m not inclined to play bring me a rock.
Some people drive a two door sports car, some drive an SUV and some drive a truck. They are all used to transport people. None of the three are bad, or better. They just do different things. Can’t you see that?
There are definitely differences between the services, there is no question of that. They are not, I think, the differences that the USMC groupies (really now, “studs?”) would have us believe. Bear Nenno described some of the actual differences as he sees them from his present enlistment in the Army. Those of you touting the USMC’s leanness, quickness, etc. should have something to back that up besides your getting moist over their studliness.
Both anger and education then.
OK
To answer the Op. Do you believe we need to maintain the Marines?
Yes, I do. They do a fine job of ship and fleet security and give the Navy some ability to put men on the ground. Those are necessary functions.
I didn’t say it was more efficient, just that it was different. It would’ve made no sense for the army to shed their heavy arty, use less powerful diesel engine in their vehicles, etc. when their expected use was to be falling back into their own supply line, had fewer tank batallions, etc. They could’ve lightened their force at the cost of their full fighting strength and for what purpose? It wasn’t their role to act as an expeditionary force.
I haven’t made any claims about marine studliness or anything like that. I’m talking about operational organization and purpose.
I’m not sure exactly what you want. Do you want to know about the Marine Prepositioning Forces which allow deployment to any coast in the world, with all the equipment and supplies needed to run a marine expeditionary brigade for a month? Do you want comparative TO&Es and OOBs to show how marine units run fewer heavy weapons and have a lesser fuel/ammo supply chain, and also how the marine units are designed to be self-sustained and bring all their own support including sealift and air forces? Or how they have enough watercraft and helicopters to provide supply from the prepositioned forces without needing friendly airfields suitable for large cargo aircraft?
I’m not aware offhand of any web pages that just lay everything out, but I can answer more specific questions.
Anyway, it’s somewhat analogous to the air force vs navy air corps. The air force has more planes, heavier planes, and fills more roles - but the navy is always on standby around the world ready to respond to situations as they pop up. They may not have the raw capabilites of the air force, but they can project force without having a nearby safe, established area to operate out of.
As for examples of how the marines have been used as an expeditionary unit in modern times - the US hasn’t really needed to respond to a situation like that. Our wars have been preplanned and supported by local allies - we had all the time we wanted to build up forces before attacking and there was no need for a fast response from an expeditionary force. Of course the marine units fought in this conflicts and acquitted themselves well, but their role as an expeditionary unit wasn’t really necesary.
The only things in recent times that even come close to the scenario in which the US needs a sudden response like that were Grenada and Panama in the 80s. In the case of Grenada, the marine corps was the primary ground force there and did what you’d expect. In Panama, there were a lot more army forces - but some of them had been deployed there in peacekeeping roles already, and it wasn’t exactly sudden-onset with Noriega getting increasing beligerant. Marines still played a critical role in that case too.
Do other countries have marines?
Ayup. Lots.
I don’t think you realize how integrated the Marines are into the Navy. Take a look at a Marine Expeditionary Unit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Expeditionary_Unit
It has a ship and boats and jet aircraft. The army isn’t set up to support these things. The Marines also have F/A-18s which operate off aircraft carriers as well as land bases.
Lol, I thought mlees meant there was none by way of a joke.
We would have to issue them tie-dye utilities and perfume guns. They could ride into battle in flower-painted VW Type 2s while playing Iron Butterfly over loudspeakers. Instead of hoo-ray, the standard phrase of assent could be “Groovy, man!”
This is why we need the Marines.
Stranger
Exactly. They’re just so butch.
Not exactly.
The U.S. Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps are two distinct services headed by a four-star admiral and general, respectively. Both services are in the Department of the Navy, which is headed by a civilian, the Secretary of the Navy.
So the U.S. Navy is in the Department of the Navy, and the U.S. Marine Corps is in the Department of the Navy, but the USMC is not part of the U.S. Navy.
The Marines, as I understand it, do several things:
They defend the ships. Somebody has to.
They’re specialists in staging attacks from ships to the coast. This, of course, is useful. Although the D-Day kind of scenario hasn’t really been the way wars have been thought for a long time, it’s necessary to have the capability.
However, the way they seem to be used for the most part is as another, albeit slightly more badass, infantry force that fights alongside the Army. In this role, I suppose you might question whether it wouldn’t be more rational to move a large part of the Marine forces to the Army instead.