I tried that approach via PMs. He replied in what I thought was an understanding manner. I was wrong.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Why does the Marine Corps have its own "Air Force"?
- Thread starter SoICanBeFree
- Start date
I tried that approach via PMs. He replied in what I thought was an understanding manner. I was wrong.
Ryoukai
The Chief doesn't like cheeky humor...at all
Do you see this as a temporary sort of thing or is the Marine Corps making a more permanent change (being forced to change?) into some kind of extension of the Army?
I dont think it is a permanent change per se but more of a short term necessity. We are still putting out MEUs and returning to a more traditional role though it really hasnt changed that much substitute Iraq for Okinawa and we are doing a robust UDP/MEU normal thing in reality.
oh, some dudes in VT-6 were telling me it was because infantrymen don't trust anyone who has been through the hellish crucible of TBS.
yes this is an inflammatory comment:icon_tong
yes this is an inflammatory comment:icon_tong
How do they feel about Air Force F-15 drivers doing exchange tours? I know of at least one that did it in the Gulf War.
You're just being a sh!tstirrer
Ok, there have been a ton of good answers on here and to some degree this is starting to evolve into a interservice hate thread so lets see if we can't keep this clean and reinforce / put the basics out there to get the question answered.
Why does the Marine Corps have its own "Air Force"? This question really seems to be asking, is really why doesn't the Marine Corps just use the elements of the other services for the air combat element necessary to comensate for being light which is required for more rapid projection of force. The answer comes in several different catagories, efficiency and capabilities.
When it comes down to it each service trains to what they expect to do the most of and if you tried to put all the air elements under the Air Force then the Air Force would have to just divide up their forces into CAS, Strike, and so forth and you would end up with something that looks close to what we have now.
As for the Marine Corps being used as an occupation force...that is just a temporary result of the situation and is not likely to become a permanant status quo. Simply put, to do so would remove the expeditionary nature of the Marine Corps and break away at its very fabric.
Why does the Marine Corps have its own "Air Force"? This question really seems to be asking, is really why doesn't the Marine Corps just use the elements of the other services for the air combat element necessary to comensate for being light which is required for more rapid projection of force. The answer comes in several different catagories, efficiency and capabilities.
- Now, anyone who has worked under an environment where you are under multiple services you will know that it is by no means clean and easy. There are hickups along the way and paperwork / resources have to go through multiple chains of command.
- As for capabilities, and I am sure some will say that I am being unfair but while the Air Force is capable of conducting CAS missions they have different guidelines and their pilots don't spend the same % of time training for that mission as Marine or even Navy aviators. Sure it is possible but you run into problems (hitting those you are trying to protect) and mistakes are more likely. This doesn't mean that they aren't good pilots, just that they aren't able to be as specific in their training as Marine / Naval aviators with the focus on CAS, and instead are needed to focus on everything from strategic bombing to air defense penitration and the like. Simply put they have different priorities.
Extending the discussion to helos and transportation, the Marine Corps uses the CH-53, CH-46, AH-1, and UH-1 for very specific reasons that result from the limitations of transporting a quantity of personnel from ship to land in a hostile environment. Why not use the Apache? The maintence requirements and its design prevent its use on the limited confines of a ship in any real number. The H-47 or H60? Well to be honest I am not sure why not the H60 other than money (more expensive than the UH-1 which it would replace) but the H-47 is just flat out too big and doesn't have folding rotors like the 46 and 53.
- Well, this mentality is out there and is really just a very very simplified explanation of what I said in #1 above. Think about it, if you have pilots who spend a majority of their time working on CAS you will feel more comfortable with them then those who don't because of the possibility of mistakes.
When it comes down to it each service trains to what they expect to do the most of and if you tried to put all the air elements under the Air Force then the Air Force would have to just divide up their forces into CAS, Strike, and so forth and you would end up with something that looks close to what we have now.
As for the Marine Corps being used as an occupation force...that is just a temporary result of the situation and is not likely to become a permanant status quo. Simply put, to do so would remove the expeditionary nature of the Marine Corps and break away at its very fabric.
Taxman2A
War were declared.
Hmm... yeah... I'm gonna have to say that's pretty much not accurate. I'm a Marine, and my boots spend 7 months a year in the iraqi moondust. This isn't uncommon for Marines since... oh... 2003ish.
By the way, this brings up an interesting point. The Marines are the best at the Marine Corps' expeditionary/amphibious mission... this is pretty much agreed. What can be said of the fact that we are better than the Army than the Army is at their own mission?
You are missing the point. The Army, if it really wanted to, has enough boots to occupy ALL of Iraq. The Marines don't. It's a simple matter of size. You have to occupy the entire theater to win the war (at least the strategic portions), the Marines are not big enough.
I am in no way saying the Army are better fighters or win more battles than the Marines. I'm only talking size.
Are the Marines better than the Army at the Army's mission? That is a whole different debate and I'm sure the answers would fall along service lines. I personally believe there are some missions the Marines are better at and some the Army are better at. But I'm not going any further into that quagmire.
A debate that would be pointless to get into on this site. Too many egos would be hurt.
I personally believe that basing your self esteem upon the baseless denegration of others is a noble aspiration, to say the least. The fact that the Army and Air Force have yet to show up to defend themselves on this Navy/Marine website only proves that they are too scared to admit that they do, in fact, suck and have never accomplished anything. Ever. How could they be good at their jobs when they are "nasty" and wear rounded covers. Better to have one group do everything at once.
This is directed at no one in particular, but I catch whiffs of this sentiment daily (both inside and outside the military) and it grates on me. Few things should raise your respect of someone faster than their own respect for others.
This is directed at no one in particular, but I catch whiffs of this sentiment daily (both inside and outside the military) and it grates on me. Few things should raise your respect of someone faster than their own respect for others.
Agree with the basic theory, Army good at some Marines good at others, but have a question...if we are talking about occupying all of Iraq. Do you count what we are currently doing as occupying all of Iraq? If so the USMC has enough personnel without a rotation. The size of the theater is really important here, say the difference between Iran and Israel. The Marine Corps would have enough to occupy one but not the other...then again the Army doesn't have enough to occupy China so does that mean the US can't win in a war against China? I get your point, just not sure if I buy it...
The bottom line is that the Army could do Iraq without the Marines but the Marines can not do Iraq with out the Army. Not for the long term. There is a reason something like 80%+ of the Army are support/logistics types. The Marines just do not have the infrastructure to conduct long term occupations or wars on their own. They need the Army to support them in that. The Army has the trucks and transporters. The Army has the engineers. The Army has civil affairs specialists. The Army runs the ports. The Army even has the tug boats and harbor masters if needed. The Marines were not designed this way, the Army was.
There is no doubt the Marines pack quite a punch and win battles. They are the amphibious specialists. They are the quick reaction force. But they are limited by their size and organic sustainability.
(And yes I realize that the Army needs sealift and airlift for their sustainability too. But I am basically talking about once the force is in country, boots on the ground. Although they have their own unique missions, in many respects the Navy and Air Force exist to support the Army.)
Dude, you just won the title of "Retard of Airwarriors" from Ghost.