User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 2:00:55 PM EST
[#1]
Semper Fi
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 2:01:46 PM EST
[#2]
Quoted:
Semphi fi Semphi fi? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 2:02:31 PM EST
[#3]
Quoted:
Semphi fi 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 2:03:43 PM EST
[#4]
I'm fine with the cost.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 2:07:51 PM EST
[#5]
RAH!
aka tag |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 2:09:52 PM EST
[#6]
Popcorn at the ready...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 2:10:01 PM EST
[#7]
Army, all the way!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 2:12:51 PM EST
[#8]
Quoted: Semphi fi ??? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 2:14:05 PM EST
[#9]
Now, if they can only get rid of the writing on the top of their emblem... 
Just saying... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 2:16:32 PM EST
[#10]
Tag
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 2:17:49 PM EST
[#11]
This is about the only thing we tax payers get a good return on our money for. To bad the rest of government can work 1/2 as efficient.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 2:19:34 PM EST
[#12]
Well, the Army has more "Special Forces" to pay for (Ranger, SF, Delta) and we always got all the new shit, so it makes sense that the unit cost would be higher than the Marines. Actually, I have no idea how the Special Forces gets paid for. Is that in the Army's budget, or do they get funded some other way? I know a guy that went to the Delta training program. Haven't heard from him in years, so he's either dead or in Delta.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 2:23:34 PM EST
[#13]
Quoted: Tag |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 2:24:11 PM EST
[#14]
nvrmd
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 2:24:55 PM EST
[#15]
why is there an officer per fireteam?
 no fucking wonder the dod is so fucked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 2:25:01 PM EST
[#16]
Quoted:
Well, the Army has more "Special Forces" to pay for (Ranger, SF, Delta) and we always got all the new shit, so it makes sense that the unit cost would be higher than the Marines. Actually, I have no idea how the Special Forces gets paid for. Is that in the Army's budget, or do they get funded some other way? I know a guy that went to the Delta training program. Haven't heard from him in years, so he's either dead or in Delta. The true difference in costs really has to do with officer/enlisted ratios and grade shaping. 44.3% of the Marine Corps is LCpl or below and we have one officer for ever 8.2 Marines Throw in secondary issues like the number of SES and GOs compare to other services and number of Marines to civilians also factors in. Other services have something on the order of 1 civilian to every 2 service members while the Marines have 1 for ever 10.5 (this includes things like chow halls and civilian law enforcement). |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 2:26:47 PM EST
[#17]
I'll bet they're glad they don't have to publish the USCG figures under the DoD anymore, huh?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 2:27:14 PM EST
[#18]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Semphi fi Semphi fi? Stroke, I can read fine, but it scrabled my brain when it came to spelling. Sometimes I cant spell "the". Spell it for me and I can correct it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 2:27:20 PM EST
[#19]
Quoted:
why is there an officer per fireteam? no fucking wonder the dod is so fucked.Aviation. Even in the Marines over 30 percent of officers support aviation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 2:27:45 PM EST
[#20]
Quoted:
I'll bet they're glad they don't have to publish the USCG figures under the DoD anymore, huh? Never have, USCG falls under DHS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 2:29:57 PM EST
[#21]
Quoted:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_uaDKwu6jRHY/TNsePzTjUjI/AAAAAAAAAAM/8-ceeWndr04/s1600/US+Marines.jpg Now, if they can only get rid of the writing on the top of their emblem...
Just saying... Fuck that. We have always been a part of the Navy. The U.S. Navy has a proud and distinguished history. As a former Marine, I'm proud to be a small part of that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 2:39:06 PM EST
[#22]
Quoted:
why is there an officer per fireteam? no fucking wonder the dod is so fucked.Because... 1) To retain personnel, you need competitive responsibility structure, pay, and prestige as civilian counterparts. 2) You can't take a guy straight out of college and make him an E-5. 3) A lot more jobs than you realize require extensive education that warrants an officer rank. It's not just lawyers, doctors, pilots, etc. Good accountants, engineers, and pretty much all subject matter experts fit into the model where, in the civilian world, they'd be classified as an "officer." I'm a licensed mariner and engineer. I have a commission in the Navy Reserve. I build ships, I don't manage people when I'm on duty. I'm transferring commands now, and I'll become responsible for a watch team of myself and a whopping 1 other guy. Because you just don't need more than two people in the watch center and only one of them needs ultimate responsibility. In my civilian job, I have a team of three other guys, and I'm ultimately responsible for product delivery. It seems like a good parallel to me, though it's strictly by chance it worked out that way (or maybe not?). But speculation about one person's experience won't get us anywhere. My only point is, there are a lot of jobs that rate a bar-wearer, not just platoon leaders. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 2:43:21 PM EST
[#23]
What does this mean?
Civilian to Active Duty Ratio USMC 1:10.5 ARMY 1:2.0 NAVY 1:1.9 AIRFORCE 1:2.0 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 2:45:25 PM EST
[#24]
Quoted:
What does this mean? Civilian to Active Duty Ratio USMC 1:10.5 ARMY 1:2.0 NAVY 1:1.9 AIRFORCE 1:2.0 Civilians who work for the service, for ever 10.5 Marines there is one civilian, most are GS employees. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 2:46:10 PM EST
[#25]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll bet they're glad they don't have to publish the USCG figures under the DoD anymore, huh? Never have, USCG falls under DHS. And how old is DHS? IMHO, the USCG is absolutely the most cost-effective branch of defense we have, and they deserve to be under DoD. DHS was potentially a mistake in hindsight, and we really should scale it back. The entire TSA needs to just be scrapped, for example. Let the airlines handle security. They'd do a better job anyhow because it's their asses on the line. You think some fatass high school dropout in a federal uniform gives a fuck? But I digress... I've only had the pleasure of working with the Coast Guard through professional correspondence and two ATs, but from what I've seen, and the friends and classmates I have in the fleet, I can say with a great deal of certainty that they provide an outstanding service to the American Taxpayer. So does the Marine Corps, don't get me wrong, I'm just joking that USCG is a bit smaller and more red-headed stepchildish. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 2:49:36 PM EST
[#26]
The only time the USCG falls under the Dept of Navy is during times of declared war. Prior to DHS standing up they fell under Dept of Treasury.
USCG really doesn't provide homeland defense in most instances they provide homeland security. It is a specific lawful difference and one reason all the services have a homeland security rep in their service headquarters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 2:51:22 PM EST
[#27]
I'm curious how USMC and Army "percentage of DOD budget", "cost per active duty personnel" and "officer to enlisted" stats would compare if you were to separate combat arms and related fields, from the rest of the "Big Army". I've been both Combat Arms and REMF in the Army, and my last (non-combat arms) unit was almost 2:1 Officer to Enlisted.
These numbers I think are a bit skewed due to the fact that the Marines leverage (correctly,) infrastructure maintained by other branches. It keeps their focus on the fight, rather than pushing papers. For instance, we had Marines in both jump school and Signal Corps AIT schools. (Only Army in Ft. Benning school for boys, though.) I would wager that there are many opportunities for consolidation of non-mission specific roles within the other branches. (Do we really need blue tiger stripe uniforms for Air Force types that never leave the campus? (I mean base...)? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 2:54:24 PM EST
[#28]
Quoted:
I'm curious how USMC and Army "percentage of DOD budget", "cost per active duty personnel" and "officer to enlisted" stats would compare if you were to separate combat arms and related fields, from the rest of the "Big Army". I've been both Combat Arms and REMF in the Army, and my last (non-combat arms) unit was almost 2:1 Officer to Enlisted. These numbers I think are a bit skewed due to the fact that the Marines leverage (correctly,) infrastructure maintained by other branches. It keeps their focus on the fight, rather than pushing papers. For instance, we had Marines in both jump school and Signal Corps AIT schools. (Only Army in Ft. Benning school for boys, though.) I would wager that there are many opportunities for consolidation of non-mission specific roles within the other branches. (Do we really need blue tiger stripe uniforms for Air Force types that never leave the campus? (I mean base...)? We pay for those school slots (our comm goes 29 Palms for school also not your signal corps school) and in many cases provide a pro-share number of instructors. The figures include BSOG dollars, see the bottom of the quote. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 2:55:53 PM EST
[#29]
Quoted:
The only time the USCG falls under the Dept of Navy is during times of declared war. Prior to DHS standing up they fell under Dept of Treasury. Holy snot, I must be tired. How did I forget that they were formerly Department of Transportation, and Treasury before that? Sorry for that. Thanks for the correction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 2:56:37 PM EST
[#30]
Quoted:
why is there an officer per fireteam? no fucking wonder the dod is so fucked.Active Duty Officer / Enlisted Ratio USMC 1:8.2 ARMY 1:4.9 NAVY 1:5.2 AIRFORCE 1:4.1 Am I reading this wrong? That looks like an officer per TWO fireteams |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 2:59:12 PM EST
[#31]
Quoted:
Quoted:
why is there an officer per fireteam? no fucking wonder the dod is so fucked.Active Duty Officer / Enlisted Ratio USMC 1:8.2 ARMY 1:4.9 NAVY 1:5.2 AIRFORCE 1:4.1 Am I reading this wrong? That looks like an officer per TWO fireteams sounds right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 3:07:04 PM EST
[#32]
Don't forget that many of the ancillary functions are performed by naval personnel. Gator freighters, the USMCs primary mode of transportation, are naval crewed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 3:10:14 PM EST
[#33]
Quoted:
Don't forget that many of the ancillary functions are performed by naval personnel. Gator freighters, the USMCs primary mode of transportation, are naval crewed. 7.8 PERCENT INCLUDES 14.6 billion of Blue Support of Green (BSOG), Navy dollars in support of Marines
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 3:11:10 PM EST
[#34]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Semphi fi Semphi fi? Stroke, I can read fine, but it scrabled my brain when it came to spelling. Sometimes I cant spell "the". Spell it for me and I can correct it. Semper Fi! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 3:13:33 PM EST
[#35]
The Corps has a better tooth to tail ratio because most of its tail is supplied by the Navy.
If the Navy did not exist, the Corps would be just like the Army. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 3:16:12 PM EST
[#36]
Quoted:
The Corps has a better tooth to tail ratio because most of its tail is supplied by the Navy. If the Navy did not exist, the Corps would be just like the Army. 7.8 PERCENT INCLUDES 14.6 billion of Blue Support of Green (BSOG), Navy dollars in support of Marines
Jesus H Christmas folks... Read the OP!!! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 3:17:32 PM EST
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Don't forget that many of the ancillary functions are performed by naval personnel. Gator freighters, the USMCs primary mode of transportation, are naval crewed. 7.8 PERCENT INCLUDES 14.6 billion of Blue Support of Green (BSOG), Navy dollars in support of Marines The officer/enlisted ratio and GO numbers are still skewed by the fact that Marines rely on Navy medical officers, Chaplains, civil engineering, etc. The Marines are good at rent seeking, and I don't say that to degrade them. They do that because it makes sense and they are tied to the mission of the Navy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 3:20:13 PM EST
[#38]
Quoted: I'll bet they're glad they don't have to publish the USCG figures under the DoD anymore, huh? They never have. They're normally under the Department of the Treasury. Now you know where the $200 Transfer/Make taxes goes.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 3:20:13 PM EST
[#39]
Quoted:
The Corps has a better tooth to tail ratio because most of its tail is supplied by the Navy. If the Navy did not exist, the Corps would be just like the Army. Shush. Budget cuts are coming and Ospreys and F35Bs are embarrasing. The myth needs to be strengthened on the blood of the truth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 3:21:01 PM EST
[#40]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm curious how USMC and Army "percentage of DOD budget", "cost per active duty personnel" and "officer to enlisted" stats would compare if you were to separate combat arms and related fields, from the rest of the "Big Army". I've been both Combat Arms and REMF in the Army, and my last (non-combat arms) unit was almost 2:1 Officer to Enlisted. These numbers I think are a bit skewed due to the fact that the Marines leverage (correctly,) infrastructure maintained by other branches. It keeps their focus on the fight, rather than pushing papers. For instance, we had Marines in both jump school and Signal Corps AIT schools. (Only Army in Ft. Benning school for boys, though.) I would wager that there are many opportunities for consolidation of non-mission specific roles within the other branches. (Do we really need blue tiger stripe uniforms for Air Force types that never leave the campus? (I mean base...)? We pay for those school slots (our comm goes 29 Palms for school also not your signal corps school) and in many cases provide a pro-share number of instructors. The figures include BSOG dollars, see the bottom of the quote. Our GMF (Big Box SatComm) operators go to Ft Gordon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 3:29:42 PM EST
[#41]
Ok, I know this is a dumb question, but I'm a dumb guy who doesn't know the answer. I also know this is in the archives and probably exists in the GD records somewhere, but I'm teamless.
What purpose does the Marine Corp serve that can't be filled by the Army? I'm fairly confident that it does fill some purpose, I am just not familiar enough with the differences between the two branches to know what that purpose is. Well, other than contested amphib assault which, to my underwhelming knowledge, we haven't done one since Korea and probably won't ever do again. Edit: contested amphib assault |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 3:35:29 PM EST
[#42]
Quoted:
I'm fine with the cost. So am I. Worth every penny and more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 3:46:06 PM EST
[#43]
Quoted: Ok, I know this is a dumb question, but I'm a dumb guy who doesn't know the answer. I also know this is in the archives and probably exists in the GD records somewhere, but I'm teamless. What purpose does the Marine Corp serve that can't be filled by the Army? I'm fairly confident that it does fill some purpose, I am just not familiar enough with the differences between the two branches to know what that purpose is. Well, other than contested amphib assault which, to my underwhelming knowledge, we haven't done one since Korea and probably won't ever do again. Edit: contested amphib assault and were off.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 3:47:47 PM EST
[#44]
Quoted:
Ok, I know this is a dumb question, but I'm a dumb guy who doesn't know the answer. I also know this is in the archives and probably exists in the GD records somewhere, but I'm teamless. What purpose does the Marine Corp serve that can't be filled by the Army? I'm fairly confident that it does fill some purpose, I am just not familiar enough with the differences between the two branches to know what that purpose is. Well, other than contested amphib assault which, to my underwhelming knowledge, we haven't done one since Korea and probably won't ever do again. Edit: contested amphib assault Edit: D-Day. that said, DoD needs the Marines. Somebody has to carry the torch when the Army goes through its reoccuring bouts of stupidity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 3:49:47 PM EST
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ok, I know this is a dumb question, but I'm a dumb guy who doesn't know the answer. I also know this is in the archives and probably exists in the GD records somewhere, but I'm teamless. What purpose does the Marine Corp serve that can't be filled by the Army? I'm fairly confident that it does fill some purpose, I am just not familiar enough with the differences between the two branches to know what that purpose is. Well, other than contested amphib assault which, to my underwhelming knowledge, we haven't done one since Korea and probably won't ever do again. Edit: contested amphib assault and were off.... You willing to bet America on it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 3:50:07 PM EST
[#46]
Quoted: Ok, I know this is a dumb question, but I'm a dumb guy who doesn't know the answer. I also know this is in the archives and probably exists in the GD records somewhere, but I'm teamless. What purpose does the Marine Corp serve that can't be filled by the Army? I'm fairly confident that it does fill some purpose, I am just not familiar enough with the differences between the two branches to know what that purpose is. Well, other than contested amphib assault which, to my underwhelming knowledge, we haven't done one since Korea and probably won't ever do again. Edit: contested amphib assault It's so the Navy doesn't have to rely on the Army when it comes to force projection on land. Historically, the Navy and Army haven't always gotten along very well. ETA: Not knocking the Marines, but WW2 proved that the Army was just as capable as the Marines when it came to amphibious assaults, both in Europe and the Pacific. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 3:55:12 PM EST
[#47]
Quoted: Quoted: Ok, I know this is a dumb question, but I'm a dumb guy who doesn't know the answer. I also know this is in the archives and probably exists in the GD records somewhere, but I'm teamless. What purpose does the Marine Corp serve that can't be filled by the Army? I'm fairly confident that it does fill some purpose, I am just not familiar enough with the differences between the two branches to know what that purpose is. Well, other than contested amphib assault which, to my underwhelming knowledge, we haven't done one since Korea and probably won't ever do again. Edit: contested amphib assault Edit: D-Day. that said, DoD needs the Marines. Somebody has to carry the torch when the Army goes through its reoccuring bouts of stupidity. The Marine Corps has conducted 90+ Amphibious Operations since the Korean War. The Army has even conducted Amphibious Operations since the Korean War. The Congress and services are presently not able to contractually oblige opponents of freedom to contest the amphibious operations. American Service Members have bled and died in these operations. While it may not meet your criteria, it was costly to them. I created a table which lists these operations on 1/11/2011. Any member here could most likely search the archives and review that list. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 3:58:50 PM EST
[#48]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ok, I know this is a dumb question, but I'm a dumb guy who doesn't know the answer. I also know this is in the archives and probably exists in the GD records somewhere, but I'm teamless. What purpose does the Marine Corp serve that can't be filled by the Army? I'm fairly confident that it does fill some purpose, I am just not familiar enough with the differences between the two branches to know what that purpose is. Well, other than contested amphib assault which, to my underwhelming knowledge, we haven't done one since Korea and probably won't ever do again. Edit: contested amphib assault Edit: D-Day. that said, DoD needs the Marines. Somebody has to carry the torch when the Army goes through its reoccuring bouts of stupidity. The Marine Corps has conducted 90+ Amphibious Operations since the Korean War. The Army has even conducted Amphibious Operations since the Korean War. The Congress and services are presently not able to contractually oblige opponents of freedom to contest the amphibious operations. American Service Members have bled and died in these operations. While it may not meet your criteria, it was costly to them. I created a table which lists these operations on 1/11/2011. Any member here could most likely search the archives and review that list. The Marines conduct amphibious operations because they are equipped accordingly. The Army so equipped could do them as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 4:01:07 PM EST
[#49]
Ooh. A numbers game. I'll play.
The active duty Army has 450,000 active duty troops and we field 45 brigade combat teams. The active duty Marine Corps has approx 210,000 and fields seven regiments. Takes 10,000 soldiers to generate a BCT. Takes 30,000 Marines. But we get a second rate half ass air force in the bargain, which with the USN and USAF is exactly what we do not need. Efficient my ass. The Marines are far less efficient at using their manpower than the Army. Same reason prices at Walmart are cheaper than the corner drug store. Efficiencies of scale. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2011 4:02:18 PM EST
[#50]
Quoted:
Quoted:
why is there an officer per fireteam? no fucking wonder the dod is so fucked.Active Duty Officer / Enlisted Ratio USMC 1:8.2 ARMY 1:4.9 NAVY 1:5.2 AIRFORCE 1:4.1 Am I reading this wrong? That looks like an officer per TWO fireteams Every Marine Corps aviator is an officer. That can skew the numbers a bit. The vast majority of them are company grade, and command nobody. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2023 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
