• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

How to absorb the USMC into the Army and USN

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,970
Points
1,040
In a country that just formed a Space Force for no particular valid reason (is it that there is no "air" in space and thus negating the primary movement medium for an "Air Force"?) I can't see anyone seriously pushing through an attempt to do away with the Marines. With the rise of China's territorial naval ambitions the Marines, and their new focus, actually appear more relevant than ever notwithstanding some competition from the Army's Multi-Domain Task Force concept (The two aren't mutually exclusive and could be aided by tighter integration during development).

🍻
 

ArmyRick

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
277
Points
880
Don't see this happening. And it shouldn't.

The author seems too theory based and not looking at reality "X" factors

You incorporate the USMC into the Army, next round of severe budget crunches and guess who the old boys will go after? They would toss the new army "Amphibious" units to the wolves in a heart beat.

Having done 1 ex with the jarheads down in Camp Lejeune, I can tell you that serious amphibious Ops have alot of unique trade craft and corporate knowledge gained over many decades and wars. There is a risk that will all be lost.

The US would better off scrapping the 82nd Airborne Division than the entire USMC. A serious amphibious op is far more likely than a brigade or division airborne op. IMO.
 

ArmyRick

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
277
Points
880
To the uninformed, serious amphibious ops is not something Canada really does IMO. Hopping onto some assault boats with outboard engines is great for sneaking in pathfinders, snipers, CANSOFCOM, etc. But not ideal for getting an entire infantry company or battle group ashore quickly and smoothly.

Look at the USMC and the Royal Marines as two examples of how amphibious ops are done. The Falklands Island war is the most recent high intensity amphibious op I can think of.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,970
Points
1,040
The US would better off scrapping the 82nd Airborne Division than the entire USMC. A serious amphibious op is far more likely than a brigade or division airborne op. IMO.
The Americans have two airborne divisions: the 82nd and the 101st of three IBCTs each and an independent airborne IBCT: the 173rd, not to mention another 7 IBCTs in the Active Army and 20 IBCTs in the ARNG.

I'm with you. Keep the USMC and if you need to scrap some light infantry go check out the airborne divisions.

Keep the marines with the Navy. It's about as symbiotic a relationship as you can ask for. Do what they did in WW2 - the Navy and Marines do the amphibious assaults and the Army is brought in once the beachheads are secured. It worked and it worked well. The nature of that has changed but there is still a fundamental relationship between what the ships at sea and the ground based Marines can do to augment and support each other.

🍻
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
6,792
Points
1,110
The Americans have two airborne divisions: the 82nd and the 101st of three IBCTs each and an independent airborne IBCT: the 173rd, not to mention another 7 IBCTs in the Active Army and 20 IBCTs in the ARNG.
The 101st is Airborne in name only these days- it is primarily an Air Assault Div now - none of the its BCT's are Jump capable.

I'm with you. Keep the USMC and if you need to scrap some light infantry go check out the airborne divisions.
No one it going to cut anything - the post was click bait at best.
The 82nd isn't going to get axed as they can power project anywhere in the world - and seize airfields/terrain to allow heavier forces to be delivered by air.

The 101st is a Airmobile Helicopter heavy entity - that provides capabilities no other Div in the world has.
Keep the marines with the Navy. It's about as symbiotic a relationship as you can ask for. Do what they did in WW2 - the Navy and Marines do the amphibious assaults and the Army is brought in once the beachheads are secured. It worked and it worked well. The nature of that has changed but there is still a fundamental relationship between what the ships at sea and the ground based Marines can do to augment and support each other.

🍻
Still need them too -- plus we got more this year from NDAA than was asked...
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,155
Points
1,060
In a country that just formed a Space Force for no particular valid reason (is it that there is no "air" in space and thus negating the primary movement medium for an "Air Force"?) I can't see anyone seriously pushing through an attempt to do away with the Marines. With the rise of China's territorial naval ambitions the Marines, and their new focus, actually appear more relevant than ever notwithstanding some competition from the Army's Multi-Domain Task Force concept (The two aren't mutually exclusive and could be aided by tighter integration during development).

🍻
As I understand it, the primary objective for the Space force currently is to develop methods and procedures to protect the network of GPS and communication satellites. Considering the importance of these assets, it's well worth the time and money to figure out how best to protect them. In fact it might be best for everyone that we develop treaties to avoid physical destroying satellites and only allowing blinding and incapacitating for a time their capabilities. As the debris from a large number of destroyed satellites, might make large swathes of the orbital altitudes uninhabitable by new satellites/stations or space vehicles for well over a generation.
I would like to see a international space force developed with the primary mission to hunt, identify and intercept asteroids that can threaten our planet.
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
3,410
Points
1,260
As I understand it, the primary objective for the Space force currently is to develop methods and procedures to protect the network of GPS and communication satellites. Considering the importance of these assets, it's well worth the time and money to figure out how best to protect them. In fact it might be best for everyone that we develop treaties to avoid physical destroying satellites and only allowing blinding and incapacitating for a time their capabilities. As the debris from a large number of destroyed satellites, might make large swathes of the orbital altitudes uninhabitable by new satellites/stations or space vehicles for well over a generation.
USAF Space Command has been doing that for a while, and other services' commands have done the same. Hell, there are USN, Army, and USMC (?!) Space folks. I agree that it is an important and growing field, but is it different enough to warrant a new service at this time?

The only reason I can think of to justify it as a Service vs a Command is that they aren't subject to USAF whims when deciding budgets.

I would like to see a international space force developed with the primary mission to hunt, identify and intercept asteroids that can threaten our planet.
Just finished reading Rendezvous with Rama, so...Spaceguard? ;)
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,155
Points
1,060
USAF Space Command has been doing that for a while, and other services' commands have done the same. Hell, there are USN, Army, and USMC (?!) Space folks. I agree that it is an important and growing field, but is it different enough to warrant a new service at this time?

The only reason I can think of to justify it as a Service vs a Command is that they aren't subject to USAF whims when deciding budgets.
Likely the same bun fight when the Army Air Force said "i want a divorce" and became the USAF, the days when almost every astronaut was a fighter/test pilot has come to a close. Likely they don't want to be run by a fighter/bomber mafia.
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
3,410
Points
1,260
Likely the same bun fight when the Army Air Force said "i want a divorce" and became the USAF, the days when almost every astronaut was a fighter/test pilot has come to a close. Likely they don't want to be run by a fighter/bomber mafia.
Yeah, mostly because a lot of those folks don't "get" Space.

Unfortunately, Space isn't sexy.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
946
Points
1,090
I'm with Weinie on this one...

Say what you will, but some of those Klingon chicks were hot!




Remember to bring a paper bag though. Likely several. That face will kill whatever mojo you got goin' on, so prepare beforehand. CBH99 is not responsible for any injuries and/or deaths due to failed pickup lines on Klingon females.
 

FormerHorseGuard

Sr. Member
Reaction score
76
Points
280
The USMC has more troops than the entire Canadian Forces. 182 000 active and 38 500 in the Reserves. More aircraft, and planning to buy more F35s than Canada is planning to buy. It is as big some countries full armed forces. But we have more tanks
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
622
Points
1,060
The USMC is probably one of the most powerful armed forces in the world just by itself. Time will tell if getting slimmer and lighter is the answer but landing and supplying a 72ton tank on Pacific islands was probably a huge limiting factor. The USMC will have to get used to not being a 2nd land army anymore (until plans change again of course) and I don't think that's a bad thing necessarily
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
6,792
Points
1,110
The USMC is probably one of the most powerful armed forces in the world just by itself. Time will tell if getting slimmer and lighter is the answer but landing and supplying a 72ton tank on Pacific islands was probably a huge limiting factor. The USMC will have to get used to not being a 2nd land army anymore (until plans change again of course) and I don't think that's a bad thing necessarily
USMC have voluntarily moved away from being the 2nd most powerful Army. They read the tea leaves and saw that Littoral actions and Amphibious work was going to be in higher need than fighting in the desert again for a bit.

It gives them a defined role, and thus budget protection. Furthermore it allows them to hand over operations to the Army -- no one like long protracted conflicts - they often don't end well. Thus they can enter and turn over the Army on a high note - and take credit for the start if things go well, and take credit for the start and blame the Army for what happened later if things go South.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,970
Points
1,040
The USMC has more troops than the entire Canadian Forces. 182 000 active and 38 500 in the Reserves. More aircraft, and planning to buy more F35s than Canada is planning to buy. It is as big some countries full armed forces. But we have more tanks
The USMC also has a budget of around $48 billion of the bigger type of dollar.

😉
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,970
Points
1,040
USMC have voluntarily moved away from being the 2nd most powerful Army. They read the tea leaves and saw that Littoral actions and Amphibious work was going to be in higher need than fighting in the desert again for a bit.

It gives them a defined role, and thus budget protection. Furthermore it allows them to hand over operations to the Army -- no one like long protracted conflicts - they often don't end well. Thus they can enter and turn over the Army on a high note - and take credit for the start if things go well, and take credit for the start and blame the Army for what happened later if things go South.
I think the Marines worked pretty hard to get themselves roles fighting in the desert. It was a voluntary decision to get away from their specialty to get a part of the action - and frankly their people were needed as the army got spread pretty thin. It makes eminent sense for them to do what they are doing. I'm not sure if all their plans make sense but at least they're thinking about the future in a logical way and will probably course correct where needed.

Actually the US Army has its focus on the future as well. It's a different future from that of the USMC, as it should be.

🍻
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
622
Points
1,060
The USMC also has a budget of around $48 billion of the bigger type of dollar.

😉
You just answered all our issues. Double the CAF's budget and problem solved. We don't have to many GOFO's we have too small a budget
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,039
Points
1,090
US Secretary of the Army trying to get into the Navy and Marines shorts?

 
Top