Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Again, the USMC's personnel costs are significantly cheaper then the other branches, about 20k per body less.

A lot of money you can save when you build gakky living quarters and crappy chow halls.

That depends who you want to believe... (hint: don't believe the Marines). The reality is that if you look at the Marine Corps own budgeted personnel costs, yes they are the cheapest branch of the armed forces by far. However, if you look at all the costs the Marines incur on the other branches (in particular the Navy), they actually work out to being about 10k more per head than the Army, Navy, or Air Force.

BTW, I forgot to mention before regarding project Hot Eagle, my Detachment Commander from ROTC actually was on the committee that reviewed the Marine Corps proposal for it. They actually laughed the Marines that presented it out of the office. As they put it, until we can figure out how to counteract the forces of gravity, etc. we would be pouring a platoons worth of bloody pulp out of those "dropships" due to the simple fact that the flight profile they were proposing, let alone the lack of appropriate landing zones in a combat area, made it a completely unfeasible idea.

They then further clarified to the Marines that the Air Force has the lead on space, and if anyone will be riding a spaceplane to war they would be wearing USAF on their uniforms and the spaceplanes would have USAF on the wings, not USMC (mostly to add insult to injury rather than because they were being serious).

chaos0xomega wrote:
Just going to throw it out there: This is in part due to the Navy's culture, where it breeds its officers as being "a world apart" from the enlisted. The Navy is, culturally, ass-backwards. Its the only branch where its a matter of policy for the officers to eat before enlisted, let alone the fact that the officers eat in a "wardroom" while the sailors go to the "mess", plus the seperate berthings, etc. etc. etc.

I'll also toss out, just to show how far down the rungs they are, the bodies of anyone killed in action or in accidents aboard ship are stored in the freezers of the sailors mess if there's no morgue aboard. But then the Navy has been flying rodent gak insane for a while now. Pilots don't nearly get the face full of it that regular sailors do, but I think that any service where you get chewed out by an officer because the reactor is waay too hot and you tell the reactor tech to get 'the feth back to work, you stupid gak, before you get us all killed!' and get dressed down because you may have hurt the reactor tech's feelings, may need to re examine their priorities.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Well, I think part of it is that the yield is amplified by the kinetic energy generated on impact by a cruise missile traveling at Mach 20 (supposedly), which if you think about it isn't entirely unreasonable (the yield from those speeds, not necessarily the speed itself).

My question in that case is how are they not running out of fuel? Shoving a missile through the atmosphere at that velocity would require a huge amount of thrust.

chaos0xomega wrote:
They then further clarified to the Marines that the Air Force has the lead on space, and if anyone will be riding a spaceplane to war they would be wearing USAF on their uniforms and the spaceplanes would have USAF on the wings, not USMC (mostly to add insult to injury rather than because they were being serious).

Technically neither one of them should be, as either of them doing it violates several UN agreements about weaponizing space (like anyone follows them, but still). That said, it's a good example of why the Navy is perfectly OK with the loss of every Marine on the beach... because they're not Navy, and atm the current system in the Navy (sadly) rewards failure.

But then again I'm very cynical.


BTW: anyone miss the old days when men cost less than tanks?

 djones520 wrote:
Again, the USMC's personnel costs are significantly cheaper then the other branches, about 20k per body less.

A lot of money you can save when you build gakky living quarters and crappy chow halls.

I read that it costs $500,000 to recruit and train a marine.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Again, the USMC's personnel costs are significantly cheaper then the other branches, about 20k per body less.

A lot of money you can save when you build gakky living quarters and crappy chow halls.

I read that it costs $500,000 to recruit and train a marine.

Thing I was reading earlier (after I posted the original post) had it around $46,000 a year for a cost of a Marine, where the Army was the most expensive at 64k a year, with the AF and Navy being in between.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Budget considerations? The USMC is bigger than the British army (but not better ) and the British Army has a budget of what? £80 Billion? I don't think money is a problem for the USMC, especially, when the entire military budget is $600 billion per annum.

Budget considerations are always a factor for the Marines. It's why they're still using the 1911 for certain applications, it's why they didn't load up on Super Hornets, it's why they've got the SuperCobra instead of the Apache, the twin Huey instead of the Seahawk, etc.

 Seaward wrote:
It's why they're still using the 1911 for certain applications

The M9 is a great pistol, it looks great with the uniform, polishes nicely and made NATO happy. The problem is it's terrible stopping power and unreliable mechanism means that if your life depends on one, you may be fethed (A lesson being hammered home by the recent survey of returning vets who were actually engaged in combat by the enemy: the M9 got some of the lowest ratings of any firearm used by the US Military, particularly the Confidence rating. The 1911 the highest. This has led directly to the Army reexamining the M1911 in the form of the M1911-A2 project. USMC bought 12k new 1911s last year.

The M1911 is the preferred weapon of anyone who wants to buy American and desires a high degree of reliability and stopping power. This makes it popular firearm with LAPD, SWAT, FBI etc. It also remains the preferred sidearm of Delta Force.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
It's why they're still using the 1911 for certain applications

The M9 is a great pistol, it looks great with the uniform, polishes nicely and made NATO happy. The problem is it's terrible stopping power and unreliable mechanism means that if your life depends on one, you may be fethed (A lesson being hammered home by the recent survey of returning vets who were actually engaged in combat by the enemy: the M9 got some of the lowest ratings of any firearm used by the US Military, particularly the Confidence rating. The 1911 the highest. This has led directly to the Army reexamining the M1911 in the form of the M1911-A2 project. USMC bought 12k new 1911s last year.

The M1911 is the preferred weapon of anyone who wants to buy American and desires a high degree of reliability and stopping power. This makes it popular firearm with LAPD, SWAT, FBI etc. It also remains the preferred sidearm of Delta Force.

Nah, Delta switched to Glocks in 03/04.

The Marines bought new 1911s as a procurement trick. The M45 that they'd been building by hand at PWS on Quantico was passed out to FORECON and, subsequently, MARSOC guys, but PWS couldn't possibly keep up the demand. If they wanted to source something else - a Glock, for example, or the HK45C like the SEALs, they would've had to go through bidding, testing, etc. Instead, they told Congress they were simply 'upgrading' the M45, and got Colt to build them a COTS replacement in a hilariously rigged short bid process. Frames were cracking at 12,000 rounds, but they still bought it.

Didn't we have a breakdown of cost to equip a US Marine/Soldier in the "Females in Combat role" thread? Also bear in mind the constant training costs, the cost of the instructor/NCOIC to train the Marine/Soldier. Meals, medical, logistical support to sustain the training and sustain combat operations. We're not talking a one shot pay out compare to the upkeep and maintain overall cost.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Again, the USMC's personnel costs are significantly cheaper then the other branches, about 20k per body less.

A lot of money you can save when you build gakky living quarters and crappy chow halls.

I read that it costs $500,000 to recruit and train a marine.

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's how much it costs to recruit and train an SAS member as well. If that's the case, then that speaks volumes!

Marines have specialist training which probably increases the cost compared to normal infantry, but it is the cost of training from raw.

The SAS are recruited from the already trained armed forces, so the $500,000 is topping up specialist training on top.

I don't know what it costs to recruit and train an infantryman.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Marines have specialist training which probably increases the cost compared to normal infantry, but it is the cost of training from raw.

The SAS are recruited from the already trained armed forces, so the $500,000 is topping up specialist training on top.

I don't know what it costs to recruit and train an infantryman.

Looks like I was wrong

Some intensive research (Google ) puts the price of training an SAS man (or woman if those damn liberals get their way ) at around £1 million. On top of what it cost to train them before selection.

and yet, the basic pay for a SAS Private is only £30,000 a year. There are plumbers earning more than that! No wonder Andy McNab has to write books to get himself a decent retirement fund

Correction. The Marines goes through Boot Camp, then goes to Advance Infantry school. The US Army the troop goes through boot camp and then to infantry school. Same doctrine. Same training. Main difference though is unit make up. I think the USMC run with two fire teams in a squad. The US Army runs with three fire teams in a squad. The training regardless is still the same.
Now here's the "kicker". The cross training. I do not expect a 11B from both branches to know how to "call for fire" with precision off the bat. The "Forward Observer" for both branches are trained at Ft Sill OK.

Let me clarify a bit more. In training alone.
I was a 13 Fox. A forward observer starting off. I had to learn infantry tactics including being a FO. That's two MOS's learned right there off the bat.
Now consider the cost of training me as a Paratrooper.
Now consider the cost of training me as a Air Assault trooper.
Now consider the cost of training me as a Pathfinder. (Gentleman Course )
Now consider the cost of training me as a Jump Master.
Now add in Pre Leadership Development Course or PLDC. Now its called WLC or Warrior Leadership Course
Now add in BNCOC (Basic Noncommissioned Officer Course )

Now what's not included is 67T Blackhawk mechanic training
Also the 88N Movement Coordinator

Now as an NCO I had to ensure my troops knew how to maintain and operate crew serve weapons, their weapons, basic infantry tactics, add in "how to call for fire" either air or artillery, how to support each other, and a whole slew of crap I learned over time from my time as a over educated grunt and what I learned the hard way from previous deployments.

Think we need a current/former Marine to post.

US Army is 2 fire teams to a squad. Marines are 3.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Marines have specialist training which probably increases the cost compared to normal infantry, but it is the cost of training from raw.

The SAS are recruited from the already trained armed forces, so the $500,000 is topping up specialist training on top.

I don't know what it costs to recruit and train an infantryman.

Looks like I was wrong

Some intensive research (Google ) puts the price of training an SAS man (or woman if those damn liberals get their way ) at around £1 million. On top of what it cost to train them before selection.

and yet, the basic pay for a SAS Private is only £30,000 a year. There are plumbers earning more than that! No wonder Andy McNab has to write books to get himself a decent retirement fund

Soldiers also get training, uniform, food, quarters and a pension, combat pay, etc.

I'm not saying it is an easy or well paid life, but if we are to compare with plumbers or whatever, we ought to look at the whole picture.

Costs even more to lose a soldier, SGLI 400k+ pay out to recipients.

some of the officers I served with should have had it deducted from their pay.

 Seaward wrote:

Nah, Delta switched to Glocks in 03/04.

My understanding was that was not universal with Operators using their choice of 1911's or Glocks (Both have their pros and cons, but every shooter is different, so...)

 Seaward wrote:

The Marines bought new 1911s as a procurement trick. The M45 that they'd been building by hand at PWS on Quantico was passed out to FORECON and, subsequently, MARSOC guys, but PWS couldn't possibly keep up the demand. If they wanted to source something else - a Glock, for example, or the HK45C like the SEALs, they would've had to go through bidding, testing, etc. Instead, they told Congress they were simply 'upgrading' the M45, and got Colt to build them a COTS replacement in a hilariously rigged short bid process. Frames were cracking at 12,000 rounds, but they still bought it.

The frames cracking at 12,000 rounds was an issue with the civilian model 1911s Colt's been producing IIRC. Hadn't heard it was a problem in the military issue ones, but Colt's been sourcing poor grade steel for a while now. I can't even imagine how many rounds have been put through my Remington Rand built 1911A1 since it was made in 1943. She's had quite a few parts replaced over the years.

Replacement of a soldier/marine depends on his/her overall experience level and training. More likely you get one fresh from training or one with a couple years of experience plus exposure to other MOS's to assist in his/her primary.

 djones520 wrote:


Using the M60A1 for so long instead of the M1A1 is another example. I think they just have a "If it ain't broken, don't fix it." mentality. Sometimes that's good to have,but not all of the time.

There's also a long running mentality in the Marine Corp (going back to Thomas Holcomb) that their service is in the most dangerous position of the armed forces in terms of budget. One of the ways they've helped justify their continued existence in the military to advocate themselves as fiscally cost effective compared to the Army, Navy, and Air Force. It does them well