stevel@u2.calgary.hp.com (Steve LaCourse) (12/21/90)
From: stevel@u2.calgary.hp.com (Steve LaCourse) Being a non-American, I have trouble understanding the need for the US Marine Corps. I would be interested in hearing some justification for maintaining an elitest organization within the armed forces when the capabilities provided by the Marines can be handled by the Army/Navy/AirForce. For the sake of initiating some discussion, I see some wasted effort from an organizational standpoint in maintaining a redundant group that is mostly self-sufficient (ground troops, air support and naval mobility) when the Army, Navy and Air force can supply all of the above. As a perhaps rather radical example of this approach, in WWII, the Waffen SS was an unneccassary burden on the logistics of the German armed forces by in reality requiring the maintenance of two armies. (Of there were political issues in this case and NO implication is being made in parallelling the Marines with the Waffen SS other than from a military organizational point of view). What really is the mandate of the US Marine Corps? stevel@hpcpdcz Calgary, Alberta
v059l49z@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Paul C Stacy) (12/22/90)
From: v059l49z@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Paul C Stacy) In article <1990Dec21.030119.11014@cbnews.att.com>, stevel@u2.calgary.hp.com (Steve LaCourse) writes... >From: stevel@u2.calgary.hp.com (Steve LaCourse) >Being a non-American, I have trouble understanding the need for the US >Marine Corps. I would be interested in hearing some justification for >maintaining an elitest organization within the armed forces when the >capabilities provided by the Marines can be handled by the >Army/Navy/AirForce. > Many people (especially the army) have been asking this for a long time. I can see some arguments for eliminating them. They are (somewhat) limited in the areas they can work because they are dependent on the Navy for supplies and support, so working inland is harder. The Marines in the early days provided security forces and did the close-range man-to-man fighting. They were the landing parties when boarding other ships and going ashore. I suppose there is some advantage in the fact that they have the same academy. Just my two cents. Paul "Joe Friday " Stacy
jln@elaine39.stanford.edu (Jared Nedzel) (12/22/90)
From: jln@elaine39.stanford.edu (Jared Nedzel) In article <1990Dec21.030119.11014@cbnews.att.com> stevel@u2.calgary.hp.com (Steve LaCourse) writes: >From: stevel@u2.calgary.hp.com (Steve LaCourse) >Being a non-American, I have trouble understanding the need for the US >Marine Corps. Don't most of the Commonwealth countries have marine troops as well? (The UK certainaly does.) >I would be interested in hearing some justification for >maintaining an elitest organization within the armed forces when the >capabilities provided by the Marines can be handled by the >Army/Navy/AirForce. Simple. Because the Army/Navy/Air Force cannot do the Marines job -- amphibious assault. Amphibious assault is highly specialized, very difficult, and quite risky. It is also crucial in terms of securing a beachead in an enemy-held area. Because amphibious assault requires very close coordination and support, the Corps has its own aircraft dedicated to close support. Thus the Corps has aircraft and pilots specialized to their mission (just as the Navy has F-14s specialized for fleet defense). Amphibious assault is highly mobile, with the result that the Iraqis currently have to worry about a flanking attack occurring anywhere along the coast of Kuwait. For an example of how a regular army botches up an amphibious assault, take a look at the Falklands War and the attack on the Sir Tristan and Sir Galahad. The regular forces did not realize just how vulnerable they were aboard ship (a rather pleasant place to be, in fact, after a week or two in the cold and wet). The marines knew enough to get the hell off the ships as quickly as possible. The regular forces didn't, and as a result, hundreds died. Finally, concerning the desireability of maintaining an "elitist" organization. (As an aside, the term "elitist" is often used to imply a restriction on membership based on some arbitrary or discriminatory measures (i.e., an "elitist" fraternity, etc.). I think the more usual term is "elite," which to my mind does not have the same implications.) There are many different missions that the military must be able to perform. Some are relatively common, as war goes, such as armored assault. Others, like hostage rescue, ambushing high-ranking enemy officials, beach reconnaissance, underwater demolition, and yes, amphibious assault are more rare, but also more difficult, requiring special skills. You can't train all the troops to do all these different kinds of missions. The US military has generally not liked the Special Ops troops, because it siphons off some of their best troops away from what they think of as their main mission. However, those same Special Ops troops have been seen to have given contributions which far outweigh their numbers. And because of the nature of their missions, such troops need to elite. Marine troops, while not thought of as Special Ops troops, do have a special capability that others don't have: amphibious assault. >For the sake of initiating some discussion, I see some wasted effort >from an organizational standpoint in maintaining a redundant >group that is mostly self-sufficient (ground troops, air support >and naval mobility) when the Army, Navy and Air force can supply all of >the above. Yes, there is some duplicated overhead. But the Marine Corps is probably the leanest of any of the US services. >As a perhaps rather radical example of this approach, >in WWII, the Waffen SS was an unneccassary burden on the >logistics of the German armed forces by in reality requiring the >maintenance of two armies. (Of there were political issues in this >case and NO implication is being made in parallelling the Marines with the >Waffen SS other than from a military organizational point of view). If you're going to use WWII as an example, doesn't it make more sense to look at how the USMC performed? WWII was where the amphibious assault textbook was written. The USMC does it better than anyone else (with the possible exception of the Royal Marines). [Moderator: wasn't it a Waffen SS, unit, lead by Otto Skorzeny (sp?) that resuced Il Duce in what is perhaps the prototypical special operation?] [mod.note: Gee, way to put me on the spot! I'm not sure; my first guess would have been paratroops. - Bill ] >What really is the mandate of the US Marine Corps? Amphibious assault. -- Jared L. Nedzel --------------------------------------------------------------------- e-mail: nedzel@cive.stanford.edu jln@portia.stanford.edu
roger@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Roger Safian) (12/28/90)
From: roger@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Roger Safian) In article <1990Dec22.033901.23717@cbnews.att.com> jln@elaine39.stanford.edu (Jared Nedzel) writes: > [Moderator: wasn't it a >Waffen SS, unit, lead by Otto Skorzeny (sp?) that resuced Il Duce in >what is perhaps the prototypical special operation?] > >[mod.note: Gee, way to put me on the spot! I'm not sure; my first >guess would have been paratroops. - Bill ] Bill, You are right. Otto was the only member of the SS in the assault, and he forced himself in the plane with the Duce, and made sure that the SS got all the credit. Roger
demon@desire.wright.edu (01/07/91)
From: demon@desire.wright.edu In article <1990Dec21.030119.11014@cbnews.att.com>, stevel@u2.calgary.hp.com (Steve LaCourse) writes: > > > From: stevel@u2.calgary.hp.com (Steve LaCourse) > Being a non-American, I have trouble understanding the need for the US > Marine Corps. I would be interested in hearing some justification for > maintaining an elitest organization within the armed forces when the > capabilities provided by the Marines can be handled by the > Army/Navy/AirForce. > The marines are an assault force. They do not build, occupy, pacify, mop-up, etc. As the marines in WWII used to say "first in, first out" and "the fighting is over, bring in the army". Also, every marine unit is trained for amphibious assault and unsupplied operation (up to 7 days I believe) where the typical army unit can operate (my opinion, again) about 48 hours before resupply becomes necessary. With two oceans seperating us from our primary enemies, an amphious assault force is pretty necessary. The war in the Pacific would have been a lot more costly without them. Brett bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil
major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) (01/10/91)
From: bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) > From: demon@desire.wright.edu > The marines are an assault force. They do not build, occupy, pacify, > mop-up, etc. As the marines in WWII used to say "first in, first out" > and "the fighting is over, bring in the army". I think we're trying to talk about substance here when we should talk about 'missions.' Marine landing forces 'live' aboard assault ships 'ready' to go in - Army units do not. However, once on the ground both Army and Marines can "build, occupy, pacify, mop-up." Both are organized, equipped, and capable of performing their specific missions. Amphibious Assault is only one of them. Yes, I would consider the Marines an 'elite' assault force. However, their basic mission, as stated, is to conduct 'land warfare in support of a maritime campaign." Don't forget, during WWII, the majority of amphibious assault landings were conducted by the Army - not the Marines. > Also, every marine unit is trained for amphibious assault and > unsupplied operation (up to 7 days I believe) where the typical army unit can > operate (my opinion, again) about 48 hours before resupply becomes necessary. While assigned to the 7th Light Infantry Divison, one of our stated missions was 'amphibious assault' - in fact, in 1982 we conducted an amphibious assault exercise (with the Marines). Our 'standard' was to be able to operate up to 10 days (troops carry 3 days of rations and ammo the rest is in the 'trains'). I, for one, am always glad to have a Marine unit nearby. mike schmitt