The Differance between the Marine Corps and the US Army

[brazzaville]

Good afternoon.
"... and all too often the US Marines, like the US Army rangers – are misused."

That's the fate of all elite units. The staff type officers don't understand the warriors that are the tip of the spear, and they fear what they don't understand.

Michael Frazier

[IGOTMINE]

And you resurrected this spat thread because?

[IGOTMINE]

Yeah, PR. That's it, while the army depends on sterling performance like Kasserine Pass, or Task Force Smith. The smashing victory at the Little Big Horn rounds out their glorious history.

Well over a year and you're still running your yap, I see.

[IGOTMINE]

Your words betray such ignorance.

[R. Scott]

But they watched a movie once!

[brazzaville]

Good afternoon.
"And you resurrected this spat thread because?"

I have a perverse sense of humor and I found you boys to be mildly amusing on a rainy day.

Didn't you enjoy it? If not, why did you play?

Michael Frazier

[quadrant]

I agree the Army is a much more visible target than the Marine Corps; however, many of the Army's problems are self-inflicted, eg the problems with the Paladin artillery piece and the Cheyenne scout helicopter.
Moreover, the "political" problems within the Army are as deleterious as the problems the Army has with Congress. For example, the almost moronic personnel system the Army has clung to like a security blanket and the squabbles between the various "branches" within the Army.
Now, the Army is setting itself up for the biggest fiasco of all: the Future Combat Systems. Its too expensive to be funded, too high tech to withstand the wear and tear of combat for sustained periods, and - more importantly - it takes the Army's eye off the most critical problem it faces: putting more trained boots (worn by enlisted soldiers not officers) on the ground.
The Army's leadership seems to be falling into the same mindset as Roger Smith when he was CEO of General Motors. Smith wanted to transform GM into a high tech company. To that end, he spent billions and let GM's manufacturing capacity run down.
In a way you are correct about the V-22. This aircraft has the potential to revolutionize mobility, but it should not have been developed by the Marine Corps. The Corps lacks the technical and management base to sustain development of such a revolutionary project. If the Air Force, which has that sort of skill, had been assigned to develop the V-22 from the beginning, the plane might be flying now.

[jmpmstr4u2]

Let's take a look at the picture. They BOTH are wearing a navy cover and the one in BDU's or UTS does not have a name or branch tape like is mandatory under AR 670-1. The Naval Infantry (Marines) also do not wear name tapes and wear the many poited cover...Hummmm I wonder if he is Marine Reserves??????

[jmpmstr4u2]

I do stand corrected. He is wearing a name and branch tape although I can't tell what it reads. Still say he is Marine Reserves..lol

[R. Scott]

One of our major bitches before I retired was the introduction of high tech for the sake of high tech. One great example was the LACV – 30.
Someone in Army procurement thought we needed it. – and as it was off the shelf we got it. It is a high speed air cushioned vehicle for amphibious operations. Jet turbine engines required a lot of maintenance and were susceptible to damage from salt and sand, as were the propellers that drove it. They were made to use in Alaska on ice, not in warm salt water on sandy beaches. These craft had more down time than operational time – as I remember, it was about 25 hours maintenance for every hour of running by the book, but they seldom were up that much. The Future Combat Systems sounds similar – high tech for the sake of high tech. A high “Gee Whiz” factor.
Hopefully some of the in house problems will disappear in the next decade. Many of our highest ranking Generals came up when officers who wanted quick promotion earned degrees in business administration and political science, not military history. The legacy of McNamara’s Best and Brightest. Today it is different – military history is again a favored degree for the rising young officer.

[quadrant]

You may be right, but unlike the Marine Corps the Army is an institution.
It is very difficult to change the culture of institutions, as long as personnel policies remain in place.
For example, recently, I saw a photograph of Col Frederick L Borch, a member of the JAG corps and the chief prosecutor for tribunals that will try the detainees at Gitmo. Col Borsch wore the wings of a paratrooper.
Since its reasonable to assume that the colonel has spent his entire career in the JAG corps and will never command an parachute brigade, I cannot understand why anyone in the personnel branch would approve his application to attend jump school. He has no need for such training.
This badge earning mania - I've been told the Army jargon for it is "stations of the cross" - by people who have no direct or demonstrable need for them is a symptom of an
institution that has lost control of its function and is doing things for institutional reasons and not for mission reasons.
There are other examples: the mandatory and idiotic rotation of officers from command to staff, a practice which might have had validity when instituted but is now little more than a fetish; the almost universal requirement that officers have advanced degrees, not from need but as a prerequisite for promotion; or the transfer of officers into and out of billets every couple of years. This practice was carried to its absurd end during the Vietnam War of requiring officers to spend six months at command and six months in a staff job.
Of course, the Army may have changed since the Vietnam War, but from the blogs I read personnel practices haven't changed that much.
Again, you may be right that the high-tech fetish has run its course, but I doubt it. Institutions tend to get vested interests in projects and are loathe to abandon them, despite evidence of uselessness. The colonels who are the project officers involved with the FCS will run the Army one day, and they are not likely to abandon willingly this boondoggle.
It is sad that the Army has come to such a state. Perhaps this was to be expected. Given the inertia within armies, it requires a major defeat to get them to abandon outmoded practices. Thankfully for the country, the Army has never suffered such a defeat, but the consequences for the Army (and for the country) will be tragic, one day.

[R. Scott]

This badge earning mania - I've been told the Army jargon for it is "stations of the cross"

In my day it was called “ticket punching”.
Inertia is a product of bureaucracy, and our Army, due to its size is a prime example.

[TChris]

So the difference is that marines always hang out in dress blues while Army guys wear camos? What's the point of this supposed to be? The Army has dress uniforms too.

[quadrant]

If the Army spent as much time cutting away the dead wood in its internal organization as it spends trying to come up with gimmicks like this FCS, perhaps there might be hope. As it stands now, its only a matter of time before the Army implodes.
Like General Motors, the Army is an organization that has failed to master change.

[R. Scott]

If the Army spent as much time cutting away the dead wood in its internal organization as it spends trying to come up with gimmicks …

Like removing promotions and school assignments from the political realm? It was a standing truism that promotions, schools, decorations and awards often were determined by what coffee pot a soldier hung around – not by job performance.

[quadrant]

I accpet your assertion.