Having no military background, I have often wondered why the two exist separate from each other.

Don't they basicially do the same things?

If that's the case, why did one spring up after the other?

??????????????????

__________________
Enough about me, how are you doing?

Long ago, in the days of sailing ships, you didn't attack another ship with the intent of sinking it. You attacked with the intent of killing the crew and seizing the ship as a prize. The marines were the guys who would go over the rail and board the other ship to seize it. Floating combat troops.

__________________
Jonathan

2011 Mazda2
2000 E320 4Matic Wagon
1994 C280 (retired)

Someone has to be killed, whilst the other does the hard work.

I always thought the people who WANTED to go to the service went to be a Marine, and the ones that HAD to go were in the Army.

(J/K)

Question asked in late 1940's and early 1950's when the military was undergoing extreme downsizing, before the Korean War.

When the Korean War started the military needed combat troops, in force, on the ground, fully equiped and ready to fight a half a world away. They had NOTHING that could answer all of those issues, but the marines were the nearest thing to it so in they went.

Because of that experience, the Navy & USMC got a huge budget boost and the USMC got a seat in the JCS equal to the Navy's CNO.

The question gets asked in each one of those decennial Pentagon reviews. In one of those Caspar Weinberger asked the Pentagon to begin planning for a different kind of war instead of a nuclear-tipped land war in Europe & Asia. That study continued through Bush I's adminisitration and finally began some tentative plans for implementation. It gained steam under Clinton I (during the down-sizing following the collapse of the USSR). Clinton saw the Weinberger initiative as a way to save money as well as reform the military to a "new world order."

All of the service branches were onboard with the initiative except the Army, which stood to lose it's heavy armor and other capabilities that it loved. Also, special forces (including Rangers) would receive greater support, though the Army previously had kept trying to kill-off those kinds of units. Top brass was divided and so, reform dragged until Cohen (sometime in '98 or '99) began retiring senior officers who wouldn't play ball. After that the SF units, and Rangers, and airborne units received a lot more resources and attention. Heavy infantry was given a back seat. Coincidentally, my brother served in heavy infantry in German under Col Shinseki, whom he described as the finest officer he ever worked for. Shinseki was one of the senior officers who fought against the changing role, arguing that the USA would always need heavy infantry to fight any land war in Asia or Europe, where we would always have a strategic interest.

Meanwhile, the USN, USMC, and USAF all undertook major reform of command and control and SF units beginning in the early 1990's and were largely complete before 2001. The Army wasn't even on the same field with them. 9/11 changed that. The USAF argued that the Navy didn't need aircraft carriers, that the dang things could eaily be destroyed by relatively cheap cruise missiles and that the whole battle group concept was WWII tactics in a WWIII world.

The inability of the Army & USAF to lift and supply and give air support to a unit larger than a brigade in Afghanistan while they watched the USN & USMC git'er done embarrassed top brass in the army and USAF. They finally got the 82nd into the fight after the USN maintained tactical air support and USMC secured areas for them to make an air assault in force. This put the senior Army command on notice that the Weinberger initiative was now golden.

B

Upgrading and changing for the type of war that will be fought "next" makes computer upgrades look down right cheap, doesn't it?

__________________
" We have nothing to fear but the main stream media itself . . . ."- Adapted from Franklin D Roosevelt for the 21st century

OBK #55

1998 Lincoln Continental - Sold
Max 1984 300TD 285,000 miles - Sold
The Dee8gonator 1987 560SEC 196,000 miles - Sold
Orgasmatron - 2006 CLS500 90,000 miles
2002 C320 Wagon 122,000 miles
2016 AMG GTS 12,000 miles

thanks for the lesson guys. Bot- was it the Romans or Phoenicians who had the greatest fighting vessels by sea?

__________________
"It's normal for these things to empty your wallet and break your heart in the process."
2012 SLK 350
1987 420 SEL

Neither - Greek fire FTW!

When I was in the Marines in the 70's, we took turns being on "Air Alert".

We had our gear packed and were ready to move out on 2 hour's notice. Every now and then they would pull the trigger and make us haul freight to Cherry Point and load up to fly somewhere for a few days, just to make sure we were ready.

We took pride in always being ready to fight...I think to a degree beyond any other branch. That is one thing that makes the Marines different, IMO.


Tim

__________________
2009 VW TDI Jetta Sportwagon 172k miles (rear-ended harder than Elton John on 8/4/13. Total loss)

1991 Volvo 240 142k miles (T-boned by a stop sign runner. Total loss)

One thing that hasn't been explained is that the Marines are an expeditionary force that mounts amphibious assaults using infantry, armor, aircraft, and watercraft in a role that is more tactical than strategic. While the Army has such expeditionary forces, its role is both strategic and tactical. The Special Forces communities (which all branches have, except for the Coast Guard) are another thing altogether. Separation of "similar" forces such as the Marines and Army is also done so that one is not completely beholden to, or at the mercy of, the chain of command of the other. As an analogy, one of the reasons the Air Force was separated from the Army was so that it would have the freedom to serve the strategic needs of the country, separate from the parochial needs of the Army.

Excuse me? Please explain how the USN & USMC did that with meager airlift capability. A few CH-46s & KC-130s don't cut it compared to the CH-47s, MH-53s, C-130s, C-17s, and C-5s that were used on the Army and Air Force side. Afghanistan is not a littoral country, so the KC-130s would have had to spend all their time passing gas to the CH-46s if supply & resupply were attempted that way, and thus couldn't be used a concurrent airlifter role themselves.

Depends on the era. Romans had the most ships through time, but they looked upon seafaring as a way to get the army into battle while both the greeks & Phoenicians used their ships as organized naval forces for commerce raiding and amphibious operations.

As Nathan Bedford Forrest explained his strategy, "They got theah fustest wit de mostest.

The Vikings would have laughed at you guys... try rowing across the north sea, kill everone, then row back home...

__________________
-Marty

1986 300E 220,000 miles+ transmission impossible
(Now waiting under a bridge in order to become one)

Reading your M103 duty cycle:
http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/831799-post13.html
http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/831807-post14.html

Cute, but that's not an answer to my post. If you wanna quibble, The "fustest" were Army special ops delivered by MC-130s. Past that, my statement still holds true: the Air Force supplied the overwhelming portion of the logistics stream.

You forgot the part about breeding with the locals...