How can a civilian understand military organization and why is it such a mess?

A question was asked on the website Quora about why the military makes no sense by a person who has never  been in the military. Interesting.

For instance, I am always wondering about things like:

– why do helicopters belong to army, but not to air force?
– why marines are a department of navy, even though they are kind of infantry?
– etc

I thought that the question itself wasn’t bad. It isn’t very intuitive why the military does makes some of the budget allocations it does. Why not just make one fly, one drive tanks, and one drive boats. For that matter, why do we even need the Marines? That said, I wanted to share a bit for those who have ever wondered why the Nave has infantry, the Army has helicopters, and why the Marines (another word for ocean) are in the desert.

Civilians would need to understand the tactics and strategies of the military as well as the different roles of each branch and how different technologies play to each branch’s strengths.

The reason that the Navy has infantry and the Air Force does have helicopters, but only a few, is because they aren’t the best choice for them to complete their mission. You shouldn’t classify that the guys with guns should be in the Army, and the stuff that flies should be in the Air Force. To do so would be a logistical nightmare and wash away all tactical advantages of these units training together and being part of the same command structure with specific specialities.


The Amphibious Warrior

Since my specialty is the Marines, I will explain why the Navy needs them. The Marines currently exist to provide a foothold into any territory. The Army can do this by land, but the Marines are specialized to do this by sea. Wars like Iraq and Afghanistan hide this, since they are sort of either desert or landlocked mountain countries, but the specialty of the Marines, as one of their motos state, is to be the “First to the Fight”. If you want an example, look at the history of World War II. The Army owned Europe, but the Island hopping campaigns of Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima and Okinawa, to name a few, were the historic battles of Marine Corps legend. While Army was specialized to control a territory as large as Europe, the Marines are specialized to control a span as large as the Pacific. Marines are the smaller, lighter, faster infantry while the Army travels heavy. The Marines aren’t able to do what the Army did the way they did it, but the Army couldn’t take the beaches in the same way, either. Now that we do understand that there are soldiers who specialized in amphibious warfare, you have to put them under the branch that would use them most efficiently… the one who carted them to fight, which is the Navy.


How Exactly Does One Get Behind Enemy Lines?

So why does the Army need helicopters, but the Air Force doesn’t? Because the Air Force doesn’t need them and the Army does, along with the Marines. What does a helicopter really do? It is great for getting troops and supplies behind enemy lines, into extreme conditions, and are generally very versatile platforms for infantry. They can get anyone where they need to be and get them out quickly. Infantry, like Marines and Army need these abilities. Their drawbacks are that they are slow, relative to a plane,  and have short range. The Air Force, however, has no actual infantry. They also specialize in a completely different form of warfare. The Air Force focuses on long range fighting with missiles, jets, bombers and satellites. Yes, they do have helicopters for some purposes, but in general, they most famous for their fixed wing assets and missile capabilities. They want to go far and strike from a distance. Where do helicopters fit into that? So you see, someone actually did think this one through. Infantry needs quick support, drop off, and recovery. The Air Force isn’t made to do that.


F-35: Specialized for Your Destructive Pleasure.

For another example, let’s look at something else. Let’s take a look at how the different branches must be specialized in manners that don’t lend themselves immediately to common sense. This is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. It may not be clear how a comparison of the F-35 explains why the Navy has an entire branch dedicated to land warfare, but as you said, you’re a civilian and don’t know better. So let’s look a bit closer.

See how there are three of them? That is because it is a single plane that has three different variants. It is intended to be able to be only slightly modified to replace three separate planes each performing three different, but similar roles.

The F-35A will be going to the Air Force. This variant is intended to fly farther while moving faster and maintaining its maneuverability. It will be a great fighter aircraft and will likely be the sword in any defensive fight we have in the foreseeable future.

The F-35B Focuses more on speed and power. It sacrifices range and top speed for the ability to land and take off virtually anywhere. The plane is equipped with short takeoff and vertical landing which means that it can land and take off from many more places across the world and extends the reach of Marines on the ground with fighter and strike capabilities. The Marines plan to be launching the aircraft from “unimproved surfaces at austere bases”. I used to be in the Marines and that is better read as “field in the middle of nowhere.”

The F-35C focuses on providing a craft suited to land on a ship. This variant will be good for combat at sea. Where the Air Force’s variant will no longer be able to reach, the C will be able to launch strikes and fighter missions from anywhere within reach of the water.

Why did we need to create all these different versions of the same plane? Because we need one plane to do the job of many, but the different branches of the military each have very different needs. There is no true cookie cutter solutions because we need specialization. Each branch needs their own version so that they can fit into their capabilities and tactics, and it works. To people who don’t really understand the intricate ways that the military fits together, though, it seems like they just spent a lot of money to make three planes into one, then back into three.


Summary: I Swear This Stuff Makes Sense

The reason that the Navy has infantry and the Air Force doesn’t need helicopters (they do by the way) because that isn’t the best choice for them to complete their mission. We specialize with the very well organized use of the right technology in the hands of the right people for full spectrum coverage. Call it force multipliers, or tactical deployments or whatever, but to organize them in the way that most people think makes sense would be inefficient. What one would consider common sense, another would consider, “uninformed”. Common sense, such as a world where all flying stuff was part of the Air Force and ground fighting would be done by the Army would, in reality, put the wrong people in the wrong type of fight and create unnecessary middlemen where simply giving the Marines the damned helicopter would make a lot more sense.

 


Blues

This has been an independent, publicly funded article brought to you by patrons via the social crowdsourcing platform Patreon.com.

Thanks for reading! Everything I write is completely independent and made completely free through the generous support of fans and followers through tips and donations made available through Patreon. If you would like to show your support for independent writers like me you can find out more here: Support Jon Davis creating Short Stories in Military, Science Fiction and Life

Should there be a Marine Corps Academy?


I am writing this post to my fellow Marines out there. I am suggesting, though I am not the first, that a discussion regarding the status of formal Marine Corp Academy be created.

To begin with, I am a former Sergeant in the United States Marine Corps. I had two tours in Iraq and feel that gives me the right to pose the question, “Why is it that the Marines’ do not have their own formal Academy?”
Currently officers in the United States Marines who have received academy training come from Annapolis. This is the site of United States Naval Academy. For its history Marine Officers were selected from every class of Naval Academy graduates. Officers have been trained in all the standard courses that a sailor would need to begin their career. They are also briefed on what would be necessary to be a Marine, if that were to happen.
While I understand the nature that we rely on the navy for the greatest part of our mission success in a traditional engagement, we have evolved. We are the force in readiness that is the reach of the United States military on every corner of the globe. We do this by piggy backing on Navy vessels around the world. There is no location so far from the sea that a Marine boot can’t land in a matter of minutes. But then things change. For decades now, since the Korean conflict, entire wars have been fought where there is no obvious link between the Marines and their sailor counterparts. Our tactics have evolved to show this. The way we fight now resembles more of an aggressive version of the Army rather than a land version of the Navy.
This has made sense for many years, centuries really. Now though I am concerned about the future of the Corps. In the future of warfare it is questionable to me what the role of the Navy will be. With expanding technological innovation leading the way for remote warfare, the Marines’ ever increasing ground roles, and build up of our direct to the fight capabilities like the Osprey and the SuperCobra attack helicopters how can we continue to rely on the same fundamental training as before?
Part is this the issue of whether or not the Marines should have their own academy. I have heard some arguments for and against this. Some arguments are that this would increase esprit de corps and refine our distinctive culture. Another aspect that I don’t hear mentioned is a new headquarters for the Marine Corps University. This would create a new center for military learning and new theory development concerning Marine tactics and strategy. The best minds in the Marine Corps would be gathered to create the plans that will be instilled in new leaders, hopefully giving us new capabilities that will save Marine lives and ensure mission success.
Cons involve new funds being diverted, a lot of them. And since, last I checked, the Marine Corps only rates 3% of Navy budget, this may be a very large obstacle to overcome. Beyond the fiscal realities are the issues of is this even a good idea? Are we discounting the benefits of the current system? The minds of some the best military leaders are already available in the form Naval professors. And as much as I like to make fun of the sailors, they are a fine group of young cadets to pull from for our future officers. Further, would a break such as this result in a breakdown of our fundamental function, be the first to fight and those who secure the beachhead? If we break from our Naval brothers we may lose a great deal of the teamwork necessary for this type of mission success.
Would this be a tool to continually evolve the Marine Corps in their continually changing role? Would this help the Marines to grow and prosper by refining our already distinctive and world famous culture?

I am writing this post to my fellow Marines out there. I am suggesting, though I am not the first, that a discussion regarding the status of a formal Marine Corps Academy be created.

To begin with, I am a former Sergeant in the United States Marine Corps. I had two tours in Iraq and feel that gives me the right to pose the question, “Why is it that the Marines do not have their own formal Academy?”
Currently officers in the United States Marines who have received academy training come from Annapolis. This is the site of United States Naval Academy. For its history Marine Officers were selected from every class of Naval Academy graduates. Officers have been trained in all the standard courses that a sailor would need to begin their career. They are also briefed on what would be necessary to be a Marine, if that were to happen.
While I understand the nature that we rely on the Navy for the greatest part of our mission success in a traditional engagement, we have evolved. We are the force in readiness that is the reach of the United States military on every corner of the globe. We do this by piggy backing on Navy vessels around the world. There is no location so far from the sea that a Marine boot can’t land in a matter of minutes. But then things change. For decades now, since the Korean conflict, entire wars have been fought where there is no obvious link between the Marines and their sailor counterparts. Our tactics have evolved to show this. The way we fight now resembles more of an aggressive version of the Army rather than a land version of the Navy.
This has made sense for many years, centuries really. Now though I am concerned about the future of the Corps. In the future of warfare it is questionable to me what the role of the Navy will be. With expanding technological innovation leading the way for remote warfare, the Marines’ ever increasing ground roles, and build up of our direct to the fight capabilities like the Osprey and the SuperCobra attack helicopters how can we continue to rely on the same fundamental training as before?
Part is this the issue of whether or not the Marines should have their own academy. I have heard some arguments for and against this. Some arguments are that this would increase esprit de corps and refine our distinctive culture. Another aspect that I don’t hear mentioned is a new headquarters for the Marine Corps University. This would create a new center for military learning and new theory development concerning Marine tactics and strategy. The best minds in the Marine Corps would be gathered to create the plans that will be instilled in new leaders, hopefully giving us new capabilities that will save Marine lives and ensure mission success.
Cons involve new funds being diverted, a lot of them. And since I last checked, the Marine Corps only rates 3% of Navy budget, this may be a very large obstacle to overcome. Beyond the fiscal realities are the issues of is this even a good idea? Are we discounting the benefits of the current system? The minds of some the best military leaders are already available in the form Naval professors. And as much as I like to make fun of the sailors, they are a fine group of young cadets to pull from for our future officers. Further, would a break such as this result in a breakdown of our fundamental function, be the first to fight and those who secure the beachhead? If we break from our Naval brothers we may lose a great deal of the teamwork necessary for this type of mission success.
Would this be a tool to continually evolve the Marine Corps in their continually changing role? Would this help the Marines to grow and prosper by refining our already distinctive and world famous culture?