Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Posted: 6/2/2011 2:44:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/2/2011 2:50:43 PM EDT by R0N]
Some propaganda put out today by HQMC. The Corps is the cheapest of the services but overall still very expensive.

For 7.8% of the FY11 DoD Budget, the Marine Corps provides:
15% of Active Ground Maneuver Brigades / RCTs
12% of Fighter / Attack Aircraft
19% of Attack Helicopters

Average Cost per Active Duty personnel
Marine
$65,354

Soldier
$72,583

Sailor
$78,605

Airman
$81,368

Active Duty Officer / Enlisted Ratio
USMC 1:8.2
ARMY 1:4.9
NAVY 1:5.2
AIRFORCE 1:4.1

Civilian to Active Duty Ratio
USMC 1:10.5
ARMY 1:2.0
NAVY 1:1.9
AIRFORCE 1:2.0

Force Characteristics
"More Operational, youngest, and most junior"
Operating Forces// Average Age// E-3 and Below
Marines 134,019 (67%)// 25.1// 79,452 (44.3%)
Army 307,700 (56%)// 28.8// 118,581 (25.3%)
Navy 162,400 (50%)// 28.8// 81,849(30.1%)
Air Force 119,000 (36%)//29.4// 68,031 (25.6%)

General Officers (Authorized)
USMC: 60+21 = 81
ARMY: 230+85= 315
NAVY: 160+61= 221
AIRFORCE: 208+76= 284
SECDEF: 81

Senior Executive Service
USMC: 32
ARMY: 293
NAVY: 312
AIRFORCE: 192
DoD Agencies: 531

FY11 Recruiting Goals
USMC: 31,500 (17%)
ARMY: 67,000 (14%)
NAVY: 35,100 (11%)
AIRFORCE: 28,363 (13%)

7.8 PERCENT INCLUDES 14.6 billion of Blue Support of Green (BSOG), Navy dollars in support of Marines
Link Posted: 6/2/2011 3:00:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/2/2011 10:42:26 PM EDT by Lazarae]
Semper Fi
Link Posted: 6/2/2011 3:01:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Lazarae:
Semphi fi


Semphi fi?

Link Posted: 6/2/2011 3:02:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Lazarae:
Semphi fi


Link Posted: 6/2/2011 3:03:43 PM EDT
I'm fine with the cost.
Link Posted: 6/2/2011 3:07:51 PM EDT
RAH!

aka tag
Link Posted: 6/2/2011 3:09:52 PM EDT
Popcorn at the ready...
Link Posted: 6/2/2011 3:10:01 PM EDT
Army, all the way!
Link Posted: 6/2/2011 3:12:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/2/2011 3:13:51 PM EDT by GunnyG]

Originally Posted By Lazarae:
Semphi fi

???


Link Posted: 6/2/2011 3:14:05 PM EDT


Now, if they can only get rid of the writing on the top of their emblem...

Just saying...
Link Posted: 6/2/2011 3:16:32 PM EDT
Tag
Link Posted: 6/2/2011 3:17:49 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 6/2/2011 3:19:34 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 6/2/2011 3:23:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 0612Devil:
Tag


Link Posted: 6/2/2011 3:24:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/2/2011 3:24:57 PM EDT by AKSU]
nvrmd
Link Posted: 6/2/2011 3:24:55 PM EDT
why is there an officer per fireteam? no fucking wonder the dod is so fucked.
Link Posted: 6/2/2011 3:25:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmaNotSoLite:
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).
Link Posted: 6/2/2011 3:26:47 PM EDT
I'll bet they're glad they don't have to publish the USCG figures under the DoD anymore, huh?
Link Posted: 6/2/2011 3:27:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By LARRYG:
Originally Posted By Lazarae:
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.
Link Posted: 6/2/2011 3:27:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/2/2011 3:28:09 PM EDT by R0N]
Originally Posted By Cypher15:
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.
Link Posted: 6/2/2011 3:27:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TrojanMan:
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.
Link Posted: 6/2/2011 3:29:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Black-Tiger:
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.

Link Posted: 6/2/2011 3:39:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Cypher15:
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.
Link Posted: 6/2/2011 3:43:21 PM EDT
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

Link Posted: 6/2/2011 3:45:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By bradinator:
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.
Link Posted: 6/2/2011 3:46:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By R0N:
Originally Posted By TrojanMan:
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.

Link Posted: 6/2/2011 3:49:36 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 6/2/2011 3:51:22 PM EDT
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...)?
Link Posted: 6/2/2011 3:54:24 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Maj_A_Hole:
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.
Link Posted: 6/2/2011 3:55:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By R0N:
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.
Link Posted: 6/2/2011 3:56:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Cypher15:
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
Link Posted: 6/2/2011 3:59:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
Originally Posted By Cypher15:
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.
Link Posted: 6/2/2011 4:07:04 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 6/2/2011 4:10:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By USM0083:
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
Link Posted: 6/2/2011 4:11:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Lazarae:
Originally Posted By LARRYG:
Originally Posted By Lazarae:
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!

Link Posted: 6/2/2011 4:13:33 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 6/2/2011 4:16:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CommoMan:
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!!!
Link Posted: 6/2/2011 4:17:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
Originally Posted By USM0083:
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.
Link Posted: 6/2/2011 4:20:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TrojanMan:
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.

Link Posted: 6/2/2011 4:20:13 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CommoMan:
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.
Link Posted: 6/2/2011 4:21:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By R0N:
Originally Posted By Maj_A_Hole:
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.

Link Posted: 6/2/2011 4:29:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/2/2011 4:33:33 PM EDT by Snips]
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
Link Posted: 6/2/2011 4:35:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TDCJBoss:
I'm fine with the cost.



So am I. Worth every penny and more.

Link Posted: 6/2/2011 4:46:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Snips:
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....
Link Posted: 6/2/2011 4:47:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Snips:
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.
Link Posted: 6/2/2011 4:49:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SuperSixOne:

Originally Posted By Snips:
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?
Link Posted: 6/2/2011 4:50:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/2/2011 4:51:41 PM EDT by GI-45]

Originally Posted By Snips:
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.


Link Posted: 6/2/2011 4:55:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By Snips:
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.

Link Posted: 6/2/2011 4:58:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MattM_Gilbert:

Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By Snips:
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.
Link Posted: 6/2/2011 5:01:07 PM EDT
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.


Link Posted: 6/2/2011 5:02:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
Originally Posted By Cypher15:
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.

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Top Top