Of course when you get down to it Marines and Airmen tend to have completely different roles (aside from blow up X). Marines are tough and up for most jobs, but they don't need anything more thrown at them than they have to. The aviators keeping the skies clear for them is a welcome boon I'm sure (be they Airforce or Naval Aviators doing the job).

Every role has a reason and a position.

Of course, in the Marines, every Marine a Rifleman, after all.

That. Is. Awesome.

While we certainly appreciate the Airforce and Navy Pilots, never forget that the Corps has their own pilots as well.

Our PMI was telling us that if you shoot Sharpshooter (middle qualification) you still shoot better than the best Army grunt. Not sure if there's truth to that, but Marines qual at longer distances than Army.

You guys still flying those garbage VTOLs?

What, the Osprey? I heard they made improvements and that they're trying to replace all the Hueys with them.

Well, that one counts too I guess, but I was thinking of the Harrier. I just couldn't recall the name earlier.

The Brits have already retired the Harrier, so it kind of surprises me that the Marines still bother to use it. Then again, the USMC seems to enjoy their older, tried-and-true weapons, like the M1911 and the M2 Browning.

~Umi

That and we aren't given the nice toys. Most elite of the US military, still using Uncle Sam's hand-me-downs.

I don't buy that. The Marines have just as much input and influence in the government as any branch. If they wanted new materials, they'd get them.

~Umi

You don't have to buy that - it's historical fact. Time and again the Marines get used Army weapons and the Marines do great things with them and then the Army wants them back.

EDIT: Also, just because the Marines are a branch doesn't mean they are an equal voice in government spending. The Marines are the smallest branch of the US military.

Could you possibly cite me some official sources? Senate budget hearings, State Department military hardware inventories, things of that sort, so that I could evaluate that statement?

Nothing personal, but I don't know you from Adam, nor your information from invention. As it stands, actually being a historian, I need to see the evidence before I can allow myself to call anything a historical fact.

~Umi

Um, more than just the USMC still uses the Ma-Deuce. Most NATO Forces use it as the HMG of choice still.

Was just off the top of my head. I admit, I'm nowhere near a weapons or military expert.

~Umi

The Canadian Armed Forces also still uses the Browning High Power pistol (Browning's last design), too. Although I've heard rumors that's because they have such a stockpile from WWII-manufacturing that they just pull them brand new out of packing grease still. But that could just be a statement of how small the Canadian Armed Forces is kept at.

To some extent it's also a statement about just how many of the damn things were made for WWII. It was a crazy time.

Anywho, for the matter of the USMC receiving "their fair share", so to speak, I got curious and did some quick searching on my own for data. Here's some rough numbers pulled from wikipedia.

In 2010, the Army requested (not sure if this matches what they actually received) 31.8% of the total military spending, while the USMC requested only 4% - about one eigth the amount of funding. However, this needs to be compared to the sizes of the branches. The Army's total size in 2010 clocked in at about 1,404,135 people, including Civilian and Reserve personnel. In contrast, the USMC clocked in at about 255,422 personnel, making the Army about 5.5 times larger. When you factor in increased logistical and operating costs for a substantially larger force, the fundings appear pretty proportional.

~Umi

I feel stupid asking, but what does REMF mean?

Rear Echelon Mother Fracker.

"Marines have prided themselves for their marksmanship prowess throughout our history, yet we kid ourselves at the same time. When was the last time we were attacked by 40 inch tall black men who stood perfectly still in front of 6 foot tall white background while holding a large red wind flag? When was the last time this opponent gave us four days to practice our marksmanship before attacking us with his EXTREMELY slow movement? How dare we call ourselves "expert" rifleman following this engagement?"

Sadly, original article seems to be gone

Combat Marksmanship
http://www.2ndbn5thmar.com/oif/combat%20marksmanship.htm
by Gunner J.L Eby

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...84292-1,00.html

BTW: ANZAC day today.
All our boys serving overseas: Take care, come back alive.
Lest we forget.

Spare a thought to reflect on all who die in war - not just "our side", but every poor bastard caught up in humanity's senseless death and destruction. Willing or no, innocent or no, we all suffer. There are no victors - merely survivors.

~Umi

Hmmmm, no, no they don't.

5.5 times 4%, is 22%.

22% compared to 31.8% ....? The Army is getting 150% as much per person as the Corps.

Well...always take what your PMI says, or rather what anyone says to you about the other services wiht a grain of salt. Let's just say that the little stories they tell you have been lovingly passed down from generation to generation of Marines. Like many stories they also have a grain of truth. While the best Army shooters are certainly as capable as the best Marine shooters the vast majority of Soldiers do not have the training to compete with a Marine when it comes to shooting a firearm. This is simply due to a lack of training, and piss poor fundamentals. I once had an argument with one of my friends (Army) who refused to believe we qualify at the ranges we do until I presented him with the appropriate documentation, and taught him how to actually use all the fiddly bits on the rifle; you know like elevation, windage, and front sight post adjustments. The Army at the time stressed pure Battle Sight Zero, and used the quickest, dirtiest way to get it. The Marine Qualification Course is actually a weapon familiarization course, at the end of which you know pretty much all the basics of the weapon, true mastery coming from carrying it around every day and using it in an uncontrolled environment. So the truth of the matter is that you are simply better trained and based on my experiences tend to remain so based on the assorted courses of fire I engaged in on Army bases throughout my tenure.

My memory of Basic Marksmanship training in the Army, 24 years ago, matches what Faelan has said, 1:1 exact.

While I understand the school of thought, I completely disagree with it. The KD course is essentially a course on Rifle Fundamentals. Everytime you qualify, you are reinforcing those fundamentals. Firing under simulated combat conditions, instinctive fire courses, live fire MOUT, are all things which should be done, and are done. The KD course as it stands reinforces the basics to the point, that all of the advanced skills can be easily taught, and grasped by the student because he is standing on solid footing. I was active duty from 92-98, and was an Instructor at MCT, on the SOI Rifle Team, and trained as a PMI. As a city born and bred kid, who had rarely handled firearms, much less fired them, I can testify that if I had been taught on what would essentially be a BZO course and Instinctive Fire, I would never have truly mastered the weapon. I would be able to hit things under the training conditions and little else. Instead I am confident to this day that ANY firearm I pick up will be lethally accurate at any range, very quickly.

I am not about to get into a pure numbers discussion, however the composition of the forces is what you should be looking at to get a big picture. First lets debunk the USMC receives Army hand me downs. It does not happen. The Marine Corps simply buys these items after the Army has thoroughly broken them in every way possible and paid the development costs to make them durable enough for actual combat conditions. The USMC therefore avoid paying the development costs, and gets it after the bugs are worked out. Sure we don't have the latest and greatest but we know it will work. Secondly the USMC is geared towards rapid deployment, and projected combat power. Every Marine a Rifleman is not just a saying, it is the core statement around whihc everything else revolves. Look at the break down of personnel in the Army and then look at the USMC. The USMC is geared around minimizing logistical needs and projecting as much firepower as possible while keeping the cost down. When I was active the accepted ratio (and I am sure this was exaggerated to get nice round numbers) was that for every two combat marines we had one in a support role, while the Army had the exact opposite ratio. While not entirely accurate it does represent the structure of the two forces in a simple manner.

Now the one part of your commentary that holds no water is the increased logistical and operating costs for a substantially larger force making the funding proportional. These increases are more of a geometric increase not an exponential increase in cost. Sure it requires some additional administrative controls to integrate the whole force, but on a unit by unit basis the costs will remain the same. So even with an adjusted progression the Marine Corps provides more ground and air firepower for substantially less money, and lets not forget the USMC does this while funding a large air element which includes fixed wing aircraft. In fact the USMC Fixed Air Combat Element is roughly the sixth largest air force in the world. So when I see comments like "They get their fair share" I agree, but they definitely do a lot more with less, and it makes me wonder if the rest of the US Military is getting more than their fair share of the over all US budget.

I wish I could remember some of the names, but when I was taken through the museum on MCRD they showed us a few weapons that were rejected by the Army that the Marines used to such great effect that the Army bought them back.

If anyone knows firearms, one I distinctly remember was a machine gun that was used on early fighter planes that was also man-portable, had jamming issues, and had a circular drum on the top of the weapon.


Every night in MCRD they play Taps at lights and we're told to think about all the previous servicemembers of all branches that have lost their lives in service, and are made to lie in bed at full attention with our heads off the pillows until the song ends.

A circular drum on top of the weapon? A pan magazine, then. Odd. The British were the primary users of such guns. The only American one I'm aware of is the aptly named American-180, but that was developed in the '60s and fires .22 LR, which doesn't seem right at all.

There was, of course, the Vickers K, an iconic WWII machine gun with a pan magazine, but that was British. There was also the Lewis Gun, an equally recognizeable and well known one used by both American and British forces, but that was from the previous World War. Poland used pan magazines on their BARs in WWII, but despite being an American weapon the same drums never caught on in America proper. The Bren Gun typically used clips yet could also sport pan magazines, but again, was British, not American. Oh yeah, and the Russians had a handful of pan magazine machine guns that I don't remember right now. Pretty much everyone except the US used pan magazines.

~Umi

You are likely referring to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Gun

Other iconic weapons would include the M1918 B.A.R., the M1917 .30cal, the M2 .50cal, and the 1911A1.

Almost certainly he's referring to the Lewis Gun. It was used in early aircraft, and has a pan magazine.

HOWEVER ... the Lewis Gun does not fit Neraph's criteria of something rejected by the Army, proved by Marines, and then bought back by the Army. The Army never approved the Lewis Gun for infantry use. In fact, ... well, here's what Wikipedia has to say about the matter:

"The US Army never officially adopted the weapon for infantry use and even went so far as to take Lewis Guns away from US Marines arriving in France and replacing them with the cheap, shoddy, and extremely unsatisfactory Chauchat LMG — a practice believed to be related to General Crozier's dislike of Lewis and his gun. The US Army eventually adopted the Browning Automatic Rifle in 1917 (although it was September 1918 before any of the new guns reached the front). The US Navy and Marine Corps continued to use the .30-06 caliber Lewis until the early part of World War II."

Emphasis mine.

Don't get me wrong, I think I tried to state this earlier, perhaps not; the idea that the US Army dropped things and the Marines used it and then the Army wanted it back is very likely a DI fiction or I am simply not remembering the in all likelihood singular occurence on which this myth is based. I mean Neraph just went through three months of having things drilled into his head by screaming assholes who like to throw things around. The louder they scream the more you remember

^_^

See, I'm merely certain that the Marines and the Army have different criteria when approving or disapproving of new weapons systems (and other hardware).

I think we have time to reload though.

Welcome back, Neraph!



-k

They definitely do have different processes. The USMC does not tend to develop major weapon systems or platforms, instead adapting/adopting existing systems. The Osprey, LCAC, and the F-35B (essentially a joint project) are the exceptions being ground up projects. Another common habit is finding civilian products, testing them and then asking for upgrades (which is pretty much how the USMC got its newer packs, unfortunately quality control went out the window when the quantity went up, I had one of the packs it was based on and it was a tough mother).

Yup that one.


Yeah, but that was told to me by a war veteran who worked at the museum.

Well the spirit of the story is mostly accurate if somewhat compressed, and lacking certain details. So they take you to museums on base these days in boot camp, what is the Corps coming to

The Marine Corps runs on a tight budget.
It is fact that the Marine Corps does indeed get the stuff other branches do not like or want. Take the SMAW, for example. The Army tried it, hated it, and the Marine Corps said "hey, we will take it and use it." It was a Hand-me-down that the Corps made good use of (at least during my time in).

This is very true, from my experience. *shrug*

It's kinda fun to sit up north here and see you guys complain about lack of funding and equipment for the Marines. Pity the poor Canadian Infantryman. Trained six ways from Sunday so he can perform any and all roles, inheritor of a brilliant tradition of success in war and peacekeeping, yet consistently stuck with the dregs sprinkled on him by politicians who for decades have been fixing budget deficits by robbing the soldier of even basic necessities.

But I guess for Infantryman and Marine alike, the melodramatic words of Thulsa Doom regarding the Riddle of Steel apply. It isn't the weapon, but the flesh weilding it that is the true power. That's why the world respects Marines, not because of their tools.

This is also very true indeed...
Semper Fi!

I was under the impression that Canadian Infantrymen didn't need anything more than their trusty beaver-hunting rifles, their maple camouflaged flannels, and their all-purpose tactical moose sadles (with built-in heated cup holder and timbits recepticle).

This in large part thanks to the vast fleets of resplendant Avro Arrows patrolling the skies, paired with the joint-effort vigilance of the Royal Canadian Bear-Mounted Police.

~Umi

We wish we still had Avro.

Marines have no large-scale or long-range logistics capability. They depend on the Navy, Army or USAF delivering their supplies when operating in larger formations or for any significant period of time inland. Heck, they have no medical services of any type, it's all USN supplied.

Let's see what is wrong with that comment. 1) Everyone depends on the Air Force to bring in supplies, especially the Army. 2) I guess the Army just miraculously got all of its tanks over to Iraq by magic, or they used US Navy Global Prepositioning Ships along with some items already sitting in Kuwait. 3) I guess USMC Supply Units are just for show, or they can actually accomplish their mission; I would lean towards the later. On a theater level of operations many logistic items/assets tend to become integrated and run by a theater wide logistics chain. So I could argue the US Army could not supply itself and had to utilize USMC assets to transport supplies for it, simply because supplies got loaded on a USMC vehicle destined for an Army unit. 4) The USMC has no medical services because quite frankly that would be a duplication of services, and therefore a waste of money. The USMC in general is on a naval ship roughly half of the time, but fine I'll give you that point, it still does not add to the cost enough to make a real difference in the proportions. Take a look at how much Fixed Wing Fighter Jets cost to buy and operate, and then tell me how the Marine Corps gets a proportional share. To sum up, your points, are points that apply equally to the US Army so what is your point?

You weren't addressing me in particular with this comment, but I got curious and decided to look up the info anyways. Again, pulling from Wikipedia...

The Army employs 9 models of Fixed Wing Aircraft, while the USMC employs 4. The total numbers are interesting: the Army has 166 such aircraft, while the USMC has 328. However, of those USMC aircraft, 189 are F/A-18 Hornets, which are carrier based, which I believe means they are in fact maintained by the Navy. A further 76 are KC-130 fuel tankers, while the remaining 18 are small utility and cargo aircraft. In contrast, all of the Army's Fixed Wing aircraft are cargo/transport, reconnaisance, or utility craft. I haven't yet taken the time to calculate the exact total costs of these fleets, but with unit price of a Hornet being about $66 Million, that's anywhere from 2 to 10 times the cost of the other planes in question, so it's likely the actual unit costs of the USMC were on par with or in excess of those of the Army's Fixed Wing aircraft. Unfortunately, I don't have any ready data on things like development costs or maintenance costs, which would need to take into account the differing lengths of time the various crafts have been in service.

However, there's a lot more to consider than just Fixed Wing aircraft, and even more to consider than just aircraft. The USMC doesn't have anywhere near the numbers of ground vehicles as the Army, for example. Tanks, APCs, jeeps, humvees, minesweepers, supply trucks, water trucks, fuel trucks, troop trucks, communications trucks, fire trucks, mobile SAMs, mobile artillery, mobile radar, mobile AA guns, mechanized infantry, earthmovers and engineering machinery, even unmanned vehicles, drones, and robots such as the TALON. They add up fast.

Then there are things like Air Conditioning units. The Department of Defense spends more on Military AC per year than the entire budget of NASA, the Treasury Department, the Labor Department, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Commerce, Social Security, or the EPA: $20 Billion annually. This presumably includes the USMC, but given their much smaller size, the bulk of those costs are presumably footed by the Army, who uses the vast majority of the AC itself.

The ultimate problem is your basis of comparison is just incompatible, at least compared to the numbers I provided earlier. Total funding cannot directly compare to a mere subset like Fixed Wing Aircraft. Worse still, if we do only look at Fixed Wing Aircraft, it actually suggests that the USMC gets more than their fair share of funding towards such vehicles (given they have so many of them, and they're so much more expensive, compared to the Army's) - or at the very least, it tells us where the USMC is choosing to allocate most of the money they receive.

~Umi

While it is good to see a regular member return to the forum (and I personally applaud and thank you for your service), we are getting a lot of complaints about off-topic threads (in general, not this one in particular). So could we make this SR-relevant at all?

I do believe I specifically mentioned Fixed Wing Fighter Jets. The Army has a big fat zero. They might be repaired by Navy Personnel while on a carrier (not entirely sure), but I know they ain't when they are land based. Also I know the cost of parts is definitely not paid for by the Navy, and at least with the amphib fleet the JP5 was footed by the service using it. Also anything and everything landing on a LHD or LHA had the bill footed by the USMC. Acquisition costs are calculated in the yearly budget, you don't get an extra influx of cash to buy a new weapon system.



Nope it does not, but it has many of those items in proportional numbers. Let me explain why I looked at Fixed Wing Combat Aircraft specifically. An F-18 costs roughly $65 million dollars per unit. An M1 costs roughly $8 million per unit. So for the price of 100 fighter jets I get roughly 800 tanks. Also which do you think uses up more parts, requires greater man hours in maintenance, and ultimately uses up more consumables. Yeah that one jet is chewing up at least as much as the 8 tanks and likely more. As to the rest of the equipment I recommend you actually look at the real numbers.

This says it all in a nice little package http://www.ndia.org/Advocacy/Legislativean...et%20Update.pdf from people with time to crunch all the numbers.

Ooooppss. Sorry about that last one.