The army, air force and navy seem to have clear rationales, in that they represent 3 delineated types of movement/transport. But ISTM that the Marines are just a combination of some of the others, and I’m wondering why there is a need for a separate division along these lines. Is it possible that it’s just for historical reasons and bureaucracy inertia?
For that matter, how common are marine corp type entities in other countries’ militaries?
Well, the US Marine Corps started as a shipboard infantry service, modeled after similar units in the British forces. Other European powers also had separate Marine-type services within their navies (or sometimes organized separately) around the same time. The job is not quite the same as an Army; historically, Marines were responsible for maintaining shipboard discipline, fighting boarding parties, and launching ground assaults from the sea.
In modern times where transportation and projection of force are a lot easier, the shipboard nature of Marines has become less of a priority, and the modern US Marine Corps serves primarily as a light, highly-mobile infantry force. But they are still regularly deployed via the Navy and their training still focuses on sea-based assaults in addition to their army-like infantry skills.
The concept from which the USMC grew, marine infantry, is quite old and quite widespread in modern armed forces. In many countries they are considered a branch of the Navy, though. Other types of flexible-response forces are also widely present and often a single country will have more than one as part of different services within their Armed Forces.
In Spain for example the Infantería de Marina is, as their name says, considered part of the Marina (the Navy), but then, so is the oldest part of our Coast Guard (other parts belong to different police groups). IIUIC, in the US both the USMC and the Coast Guard are considered separate services within the Armed Forces.
It’s worth noting that the US Marine Corps is part of the US Department of the Navy (United States Department of the Navy - Wikipedia)
Are you talking of a Marine Corps, or the specific *United States *Marine Corps. There is plenty of need for shipbourne and shipboard infantry (ironically, the one thing the modern USMC no longer does).
What need is there for the USMC, as it exists today; replicating the functions of the other services (mostly Army) and doing them less well than the others (check out 1 MEF in OIF invasion, they sufered most of the setbacks the invading force had, unlike V Corps) is a valid question.
The following theory was given to me by a friend who has served in both the army and the marines. I do not know if it is true, but it is what he believed:
The Army has administrative units for governing conquered territory. If you attack using soldiers, you are posing a threat to the very existence of the enemy state. It is automatically considered an Act of War under international law. Their allies are obligated to support them, your allies are obligated to support you, and things can escalate quickly.
The Marines are simply combat troops. They can take ground, but they cannot hold it. They can damage an existing regime, but they cannot replace it. If you attack using marines, it is an Act of Aggression, but not automatically an Act of War. The allies can stay out of it, and the diplomats have more room to maneuver.
If this theory is true, it would explain why embassy guards are usually marines. Marines can shoot people in circumstances where soldiers would not be allowed to.
Can you provide even one example of a Marine embassy guard actually firing a shot while guarding an embassy? I can’t. Marines are at embassys to prevent classified material from falling into the wrong hands.
Ex-Corporal Duality, USMC
No all four of the services Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines only exist because of historical tradition. Why, for example, do they all have aviators?
Yeah, this isn’t true in the slightest. I have no idea where someone would even get the basis of these ideas.
As has been mentioned before, the Marines Corps is part of the Department of the Navy, and is organized significantly differently than other branches of the armed forces in terms of not having some common career fields that are non-combat positions. For example, there are no Marine doctors: the Navy provides medical support to the Marine Corps, and the medics that join Marine units are Navy corpsmen in Marine uniforms.
As far as why the Marine Corps has not eliminated and Marines redesignated as sailors, I suppose it is less of “bureaucratic resistance” and more of not messing with something that seems to have worked pretty well. To use one example, while each of the military services occasionally have troubles with recruiting, in general the Marine Corps doesn’t have to do a whole lot to meet their enlistment quotas. They are small enough and held in such prestige that you can pretty much always find young men who want to be Marines.
Besides, what’s the problem that needs solving? I know there’s always some that think drawing neater lines between boxes has some sort of important benefit on its own, but if the boxes seem to be working pretty well, I’m not sure what the case is for messing with success.
In fact, there’s been periodic efforts in Congress to embrace the Marine Corps more fully than today. Every now and then, the idea comes up to rename the service the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps (instead of just the Department of the Navy), but objections from the Navy tend to defeat those proposals.
Because the Air Force and its generals have absolutely zero interest in ground-support, naval support, or any other type of flying that isn’t off into the wild blue yonder.
That is not true. The last Air Force Chief of Staff was an A-10 pilot, and the last two Army Chiefs of Staff have made numerous public comments to the effect that they are well supported by the Air Force.
And to physically protect the embassy and ambassador, as necessary. That’s what the Marines in Monrovia, Liberia, were doing in 1996, when they killed (likely) some of Charles Taylor’s NPFL fighters who had fired into the compound. I suppose that’s what the Marines in Kabul imagined they were doing when they killed “suspicious” allied Afghan government soldiers in 2003. I’m sure there are other examples.
mbh’s “theory” is nonsense, of course.
Canada tried to unify their services into a single service, with a single uniform and a single rank structure, in 1968. It did not last.
Dressing naval infantry in army-style uniforms seems to be a quirk of the English-speaking world (and the Netherlands), but nearly every country that has a navy, has some form of naval infantry.
Is the Israeli Defense Force a single service?
Completely ignorant on most things military, but think I recall hearing that Marines were given some “perks” - even down to higher quality uniforms - reflecting a presumption of higher risks compared to other services. Any basis to this, or am I completely mistaken?
Any records showing the relative service-related injuries incurred by the various branches?
Yes, although the Naval Corps and Air Corps have different- colored uniforms
Who does the Marine duties when needed?
Another important thing they did as a group drilled in the use of small arms was provide snipers who went up in the fighting tops during battle and specifically targeted officers aboard the enemy vessel. Horatio Nelson was fatally wounded by a French sharpshooter during the Battle of Trafalgar. Nelson himself didn’t like the practice, and usually didn’t employ snipers.
One of the infantry brigades - Givati - would train in marine landings, although AFAIK they never applied their training in practice. It was their “thing”. They decimmissioned the last landing craft years ago, though.
The Navy also has Flotilla 13, its equivalent of the SEALs or SBS.
Five services. The U.S. Coast Guard is an armed service equal to the other four.
And isn’t the Air Force the newest service, only in existence since 1947?