21 ms·

I was thinking about this the other day. The reason to have separate branches of the military (if you can afford it) is to maintain organizational and doctrina

by ethbro 7y ago

I was thinking about this the other day. The reason to have separate branches of the military (if you can afford it) is to maintain organizational and doctrinal uniqueness. Think about it in evolutionary terms. Any hierarchical organization trends towards uniformity, especially one where promotion is conservative. E.g. most pyramidal organizations. The Marines fundamentally, organizationally, and tactically approach warfare different than the Army. The Army would have been incapable of fighting WWII in the Pacific. It's just not what it's designed to do. By maintaining five combat branches (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard), you maintain five unique approaches to warfare. Consequently, when the situation calls for it, you can apply any of those four unique approaches. Whether or not that's worth the cost of distinct services is debatable, but it's certainly a benefit from the approach.

namdnay 7y ago
> The Marines fundamentally, organizationally, and tactically approach warfare different than the Army. The Army would have been incapable of fighting WWII in the Pacific. It's just not what it's designed to do. But is that still true?
- ethbro 7y ago
  Arguably. I look at it as equipment vs training vs organization. The stuff can change, but it's even harder to change the way people think. And almost impossible to reorg and entire organization. And all militaries are very effective at making sure people think and behave in desirable ways -- kind of important when things start exploding around you. So a response that might be advantageous for pushing across continental Europe isn't optimal for a chaotic beach assault. You throw a Marine in the former, and they're still going to respond like a Marine.
- treis 7y ago
  It never was true. The army played a bigger role in the Pacific than the Marines and pulled off D-Day.
greedo 7y ago
"The Army would have been incapable of fighting WWII in the Pacific." You do realize the US Army was extensively involved in the amphibious operations in the Pacific? In the Southwest Pacific, it was almost all US Army in New Guinea/Papua, New Britain, the Admiralty Islands etc. Guadalcanal was the main USMC effort. All of the landings in the Philippines were Army, Okinawa was joint Army/USMC under Army command. Army divisions also fought on Iwo Jima, Tinian, Saipan, etc.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  My grandfather was a soldier in the Pacific theater in WWII and he was always quick to point out that the Army had many more troops in theater, killed many more enemies, and suffered many more dead than the Marines did. The Army could have still won that theater without the Marines, albeit more slowly. The opposite is not true.
- ethbro 7y ago
  I'm not disparaging any branch of the service, nor diminishing their contributions across the many fronts of WWII. I am saying that the Army wasn't organizationally crafted around or trained for amphibious assaults against defended beaches. Those units that did were re-trained, co-mingled with Marine units, and typically under Marine command (e.g. what eventually became V Amphib). Marine units were built for that mission (i.e. by integrating air assets at a lower level). Army units were not. And I don't think anyone in service would argue you could transfer a unit to a different branch and expect everything to work normally. Military culture makes corporate culture look easy. But my original point was that diversity breeds strength. Army perspective may succeed where Marine perspective fails, or vice versa.
  - greedo 7y ago
    You may say you're not disparaging other branches, but you are. "the Army wasn't organizationally crafted around or trained for amphibious assaults against defended beaches." So Normandy wasn't defended? Normandy made Peleliu and Tarawa look like a piece of cake. The Army also developed amphibious doctrine and training on its own with the ATC. It could be argued that Marine doctrine was flawed; Marine units lacked the logistical support for longterm conflicts. Army units did a better job of sustained operations. Amphibious assaults involved more than seizing a beachhead, especially with well entrenched Japanese troops. And to be clear, Army units weren't "co-mingled" with Marine units, except at corp level. Army units operated in divisions. Fundamentally, the Army had more troops in the Pacific, did more amphibious landings, arguably against tougher defenses, yet the Corp PR machine would have you think the Marines did it all by themselves. How many people even know the Army fought on Guadalcanal?
hanniabu 7y ago
> By maintaining five combat branches (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard) Six! There's now also Space Force!

by ethbro 7y ago

namdnay 7y ago

> The Marines fundamentally, organizationally, and tactically approach warfare different than the Army. The Army would have been incapable of fighting WWII in the Pacific. It's just not what it's designed to do. But is that still true?

ethbro 7y ago
Arguably. I look at it as equipment vs training vs organization. The stuff can change, but it's even harder to change the way people think. And almost impossible to reorg and entire organization. And all militaries are very effective at making sure people think and behave in desirable ways -- kind of important when things start exploding around you. So a response that might be advantageous for pushing across continental Europe isn't optimal for a chaotic beach assault. You throw a Marine in the former, and they're still going to respond like a Marine.
treis 7y ago
It never was true. The army played a bigger role in the Pacific than the Marines and pulled off D-Day.

greedo 7y ago

"The Army would have been incapable of fighting WWII in the Pacific." You do realize the US Army was extensively involved in the amphibious operations in the Pacific? In the Southwest Pacific, it was almost all US Army in New Guinea/Papua, New Britain, the Admiralty Islands etc. Guadalcanal was the main USMC effort. All of the landings in the Philippines were Army, Okinawa was joint Army/USMC under Army command. Army divisions also fought on Iwo Jima, Tinian, Saipan, etc.

CydeWeys 7y ago
My grandfather was a soldier in the Pacific theater in WWII and he was always quick to point out that the Army had many more troops in theater, killed many more enemies, and suffered many more dead than the Marines did. The Army could have still won that theater without the Marines, albeit more slowly. The opposite is not true.
ethbro 7y ago
I'm not disparaging any branch of the service, nor diminishing their contributions across the many fronts of WWII. I am saying that the Army wasn't organizationally crafted around or trained for amphibious assaults against defended beaches. Those units that did were re-trained, co-mingled with Marine units, and typically under Marine command (e.g. what eventually became V Amphib). Marine units were built for that mission (i.e. by integrating air assets at a lower level). Army units were not. And I don't think anyone in service would argue you could transfer a unit to a different branch and expect everything to work normally. Military culture makes corporate culture look easy. But my original point was that diversity breeds strength. Army perspective may succeed where Marine perspective fails, or vice versa.
- greedo 7y ago
  You may say you're not disparaging other branches, but you are. "the Army wasn't organizationally crafted around or trained for amphibious assaults against defended beaches." So Normandy wasn't defended? Normandy made Peleliu and Tarawa look like a piece of cake. The Army also developed amphibious doctrine and training on its own with the ATC. It could be argued that Marine doctrine was flawed; Marine units lacked the logistical support for longterm conflicts. Army units did a better job of sustained operations. Amphibious assaults involved more than seizing a beachhead, especially with well entrenched Japanese troops. And to be clear, Army units weren't "co-mingled" with Marine units, except at corp level. Army units operated in divisions. Fundamentally, the Army had more troops in the Pacific, did more amphibious landings, arguably against tougher defenses, yet the Corp PR machine would have you think the Marines did it all by themselves. How many people even know the Army fought on Guadalcanal?

hanniabu 7y ago

> By maintaining five combat branches (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard) Six! There's now also Space Force!