Path: utzoo!attcan!telly!lethe!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: jln@elaine39.stanford.edu (Jared Nedzel) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Why need US Marines vs US Army? Message-ID: <1990Dec22.033901.23717@cbnews.att.com> Date: 22 Dec 90 03:39:01 GMT References: <1990Dec21.030119.11014@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: Stanford University - AIR Lines: 99 Approved: military@att.att.com 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