Results 1 to 15 of 86
Thread: USMC size reduction
08-15-10, 05:27 PM #1
USMC size reduction
So by now I'm sure most people have heared about the almost inevitable coming size reduction of the Marine Corps. For those of you who haven't, here's a link to a news article about the story.
I suppose it is a good thing to be trimming the fat and flushing the turds. But I can't help feeling a little unsure about all this. How is the down sizing accomplished? Will people be allowed to retire early, or will recruiting efforts be cut back some? Re-enlistments tougher?
Hypothetically, if you didn't make the cut (which I'm sure we will) where would you go? Army? Navy? Law Enforcement? What happens to people with families who are unable to re-enlist? I imagine I'd try and switch services if I had to, but the thought of doing it doesn't sound too pleasing at all.
Again I understand the reasons for it, I just don't know what going through this reduction might feel like.
08-15-10, 05:42 PM #2jetdawggGuest Free Member
Respect the site. Complete your profile
08-15-10, 05:43 PM #3
personely, I think if thay want to reduce something, thay should look at Government first leave the Marine Corps alone it is fine just the way it is thay already have a back log of people so it's not like there getting the low lifes. the Military should be the last thing to get cut or down sized.
08-15-10, 10:07 PM #4
Heck they cut us after Korea and again after Nam so if the shooting ends we get cut no big deal. If it starts again we will beef up again
08-15-10, 10:32 PM #5
**** right after that Obama cat just increased the size of the Corps...odd.
08-15-10, 11:01 PM #6
Yeah...our beloved Corps does this does sort of thing to keep things "fresh"....they did it again after Desert Storm.....downsized........but Obama DID NOT increase the size of our Corps....all that MOFO did was increase our own countries' insecurities and make us fallible to everyone who wants to kill us.
08-16-10, 07:22 AM #7
08-16-10, 07:43 AM #8
After Nam, we had the typical peacetime reduction in force. HQMC decreased the recruiting quotas and got rid of the fat bodies and sh!tbirds. I don't remember people having issues with reenlisting as long as you were needed and were squared away. I do remember the BS level increasing in a peacetime Marine Corps but I believe that was to get rid of those who were just along for the ride.
08-16-10, 08:05 AM #9
I do realize this may not be a popular observation. But I see no reason why some or even many of the Corps support activities could not be done by the Navy or the Army.
Do Marines really need to be spending their time working in warehouses or ordering supplies? Doing booking keeping? Working on truck transmissions?
08-16-10, 09:13 AM #10
08-16-10, 09:14 AM #11
The Fewer, the Prouder, the Braver - the Marines
08-16-10, 09:20 AM #12
Usually when down-sizing occurs and people are forced to get out they are in most cases required to pay you a seperations payment which is calculated by your Rank/TIS, etc.
Buddy of mine was a Captain in the Air Force, got forced out from down-sizing and they ended up paying him about $20,000.
08-16-10, 10:25 AM #13
"We wouldn't excally be able to self-sustain if we had to rely on the Army for everything."
Certainly not everything. Not most things. But maybe somethings.
That way any reduction in force is not in the combat arms area.
Its not a question of everything or nothing.
It would require some non-traditional thinking.
Sort of like the thinking that has already gone on.
How many Marines are now stationed on Navy ships as ships company for security? How many Marines are guarding the gates at the USNA now as opposed to 10 years ago?
With some combining there would be a potential economy of scale.
This would in fact work. The question is what activities would be done by others so as not to impact combat abilities.
08-16-10, 10:56 AM #14
Nobody cooks SOS better than a Marine cook and that's a fact. Contracting things out makes some sense in others it makes no sense at all.
Ships company bah hahh hahh. You have a minimum of a PO2 doing what used to be a Lcpls job. Same with the chow hall .... those contractors get paid 10 times more than a PFC on Mess duty. The difference in pay is exponential.
You're not gonna have a contractor come out and change a tank tread at 100 grand a year in the combat zone doing what a skilled sergeant could do in an hour. Or are you?
Economy of what????
I could go down through the line of MOS's and list where it is more economical to have jarheads taking care of their own then contracting. Many contractors are of the mind that Marines be the bullet sponge and contractors make all the money.
08-16-10, 11:26 AM #15
"I could go down through the line of MOS's and list where it is more economical to have jarheads taking care of their own then contracting."
But you saying it does not make it so. You are making claims. You have provided not one ounce of data or objective support.
Virtually any average manager can operate when the budget is not an issue. When people or money is a bottomless pit.
But a good manager and good management studies and good thinking are needed when the budget is restricted. When cut backs are required.
But we always did it this way. Or this is the only way I have ever seen it done. These are not solutions. Only observations based on someones limited experiences.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)