Poll: Army most important service
Hey, that’s not me talking, it’s the poll of Americans from Gallup at the Washington Times;
Gallup started asking Americans about the importance of U.S. military branches in the 1940s, using a variety of questions over the years.
Americans until the mid-2000s always viewed the Air Force as the most important branch of the military. While it still ranks high today, it no longer dominates, the pollsters said.
Importance does not necessarily equal prestige.
The Marine Corps has consistently been considered the nation’s most prestigious military branch, even if not the most important, with nearly half of Americans — 47 percent — saying they respect Marines the most.
The Air Force was a distant second, with 17 percent saying is was the most prestigious branch, said the poll.
“Despite successful Navy SEALs raids that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in 2011 and helped rescue the captain of the merchant marine vessel Maersk Alabama from pirates in an incident that was the basis of the movie ‘Captain Phillips,’ the Navy’s image has not benefited,” Gallup noted.
Yeah, this is me gloating over here; Chief Shipley and I have a running email battle in regards to Army/Navy insults. Maybe the Navy needs to make more movies about what .01% of their personnel do to improve their image.
Category: Air Force, Army News, Marine Corps, Navy
Heck yeah! I’ll take most prestigious! lol… Army/AF are bigger so of course they are most important. Semper Fizzle
And the Army goes rolling along….
Let ’em!
“What aircraft carrier do we have in the area?”
Said every President since, well, since we had aircraft carriers.
Merge the Army and the Air Force, they deserve each other. The Navy already has the Marine Corps, and we get the Coast Guard in time of war, so, whatev Army. You march really well (although not as good as Marines, but way better than the Navy) have rock solid tattoo regs and that neat PT belt, so you got that going for you, which is nice.
Having been in both the Army and Air Force…ARMY all the way!!! Hands down. Maybe if I had been in the Navy I would feel differently. But I was just not…”happy” enough the recruiter said. He kept asking me if I could sing a show tune for him, you know, something from “South Pacific” or “Oklahoma”, if that answers your question. I thought that odd. 😀 😀 😀
What, Sparks – he didn’t ask you to sing “In the Navy”? (smile)
Hondo…It wasn’t out then or I’m sure he would have. What we now call “Classic Ancient Rock” was the order of the day back then. 😀
The Navy controls vital sea lanes. Very important.
The Marines seizes entry points in hostile areas. Very important.
The USAF suppresses the enemy’s air forces, and provides fire and transportation support for all. Very important.
The Army fights and wins the nation’s wars.
Any questions?
If the Army fights and wins the wars, why did the USMC have to go back into Afghan and Iraq? 😀
For the same reason the USMC (and the Navy) had people “on the ground” in Vietnam after about Sep 1965: “It’s the only war we’ve got.”
USMC and Navy leadership couldn’t sit by and do nothing then, and they couldn’t in Iraq or Afghanistan – even if neither was exactly a maritime theater. They might have lost prestige and dollars if they had.
Look, I have great respect for my Naval and USMC brothers-in-arms; they’re true warriors. But neither the USMC nor the Navy is organized to conduct sustained, long-term ground combat. That’s not either the Navy’s or the USMC’s mission. Using forces from either service to do that is IMO simply a political ploy by DoN and/or HQMC to garner prestige and funding.
Good answer. I agree, we aren’t set up (or even big enough) to carry out sustained combat. However, I don’t think it was completely a political move to involve the USMC in Iraq/Afghan/Vietnam. One thing those wars have in common is that they were poorly planned and no one thought about the whole “after the invasion” part of the equation. As a result, they needed more boots on the ground and one option was the USMC. There may have been some element of gaming for political reasons but in the end if it had been planned better I imagine the USMC would have left after reaching/securing Baghdad like we were originally told would happen.
There was an element of “more bodies needed”, true. And in time of crisis, yes – the USMC can indeed “pitch in” and help do the ground combat mission. You guys are damn good at that.
That said, I think there was more politics in play than anything else. Other options were available (e.g., deploy an additional Army division or two vice committing a MEF, and reactivate one or two that were deactivated during the Clinton administration as backfill in CONUS).
IMO, those options weren’t chosen for political reasons. Frist, it would have required DoD publicly admitting it needed more force structure. The Pentagon didn’t want to do that publicly (they achieved the same end by continually keeping reservists and National Guard troops in the mix instead).
Second, deploying a USMC division meant the Army didn’t reactivate one or more of those divisions deactivated under Clinton – which would have given the Army claim to a bigger share of DoD’s budget. It also garnered more publicity for the USMC, and justified a greater share of DoD’s budget for both the USMC and the Navy (which provides much of the USMC’s logistical support).
The saner approach IMO would have been to temporarily reactivate an additional 2 Army divisions and add them to the mix, then inactivate them as things wound down in-theater. But that wasn’t politically palatable to either political leadership or within the Pentagon.
Bear in mind that they tried to achieve those kinds of force expansion results by going to a “brigade-centric” force, with 4 brigades per division (which we are now seeing drawn down to 3).
There was some talk about bringing back the flags for 5th and 24th infantry Divisions, but I think the plan was to put NG brigades under them and not to flesh them out with regular Army units.
All good points and I won’t argue against them. You’ve been in the game longer than I. Just one reason I like this blog so much- I learn a lot from those who have been there and done it. Perhaps some of my resistance to blaming it all on politics is from this deep-seeded desire to believe that the peeps in power have our best interests in mind. Give me 10 years and I imagine that would back off some lol.
All good points. Prior to the 1st Gulf War, the Corps’ focus was, as it seemed, on amphibious operations and wasn’t geared for prolonged periods of combat (as it is today). A MEU can sustain itself for a time, but not indefinitely, which is why that branch is trying to get back to its amphibious roots/doctrine. During OEF/OIF, the Corps adapted to sustained combat operations, and eventually learned about civil affairs and such. IMO, the Army was better prepared at “nation building” than the Corps was, but it learned and adapted. Clearly the world has changed, so its hard to say whether the Corps will fully return to its amphibious doctrine – as much as it would like to.
+1 internetz.
ED – so if it was a poorly planned goat-rope, then it was a natural fit for the USMC – is that what your reply means? (Just pulling yer leg, brother – you left it wide open.)
I tend to agree with Hondo – no service chief is going to voluntarily let his service sit on the sidelines during an active war – too much money and prestige at stake.
Touche 😀
Hondo…NONE HERE. I heard that loud and clear.
The Navy’s problem is that they have not blanketed the interwebs with pictures of Shipley’s hair. There can be no other explanation.
Richard…If the Navy promoted that sea duty, salt air and such caused you to grow a head of hair like Chief Shipley’s, men, young and old, would be lined up around the block at the Navy recruiter’s station.
The US has only two branches of military; ARMY and NAVY.
The Airforce is a coporation and the USMC is a cult.
🙂
I wish this were true. It would mean I would have spent 2 less years in Iraq during my time. Good thing this cult knows how to fix things (kick ass). lol
AF chairborne! It’s not an adventure, it’s just a job. AF Intel wasn’t even close to being military, except we shared the same business suit.
How many votes did USAF Auxiliary CAP get?
OOOOHHHH!!! That had to leave a mark! 😀
I’m guessing they got at least one from the DFW area . . . .
Can I get a vote for “The Guard”? Not sure which, a certain Lieutenant Corporal wasn’t too clear on that.
🙂
Duh-nations that do not have armies do not generally stay in the habit or remaining nations for very long (there are a very few exceptions-Costa Rica has an Army-the United States Army and Mauritius relies on the French, may God help them).
Relatively few nations have a Marine Corps (even then it is usually a small, extremely specialized force-not really like the USMC), more have a Navy (though many do not in any form other than river patrol or coastal defense) and most have an Air Force in some form, though often its main functions are close air support and transportation of the Army. Only in island nations like the UK or Japan is the Navy or perhaps greater importance than the Army.
“…is the Navy of perhaps greater importance than the Army.”
All serving members of my family have been in all branches of the military, all the way back to the Civil War. And come to think of it, I had family on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line, too! So I can’t discriminate, I have to love all of them. 🙂
This is simply evidence of a PR gap, as the navy doesn’t crow about their battles as much as the army does. Your average person has seen Band of Brothers and Saving Private Ryan. The average person may have seen how Robert Shaw was defeated at the Battle of the Bulge.
How many of those same folks know where “Ironbottom Sound” is, or why it is called that? How many know what happened at Leyte Gulf, the largest naval battle in human history? No, all they ever hear about is Pearl Harbor and they get to thinking about that dipshit Ben Affleck.
Also, I will have to point out that Benedict Arnold was so spoiled by the sheer awesomeness of his brief ad-hoc naval experience, that when he was told to go back to doing army stuff, he became a traitor.
Ah, then you have never seen ‘Victory At Sea’, have you?
Plenty of movies that played up the Navy over time “Midway”, “They Were Expendable”, “Operation Pacific”, “Run Silent, Run Deep”, “Mister Roberts”, etc., etc., etc. (those are all off the top of my head).
And seriously “the navy doesn’t crow about their battles as much as the army does”-come on. The Navy has plenty to be proud of, but Navy KIA for Okinawa were greater than for all conflicts for the Navy up until WWII combined-and still were fewer than the Peninsula Campaign during the Civil War or the Marne during WWI, just for examples. I think we might be forgiven a little “crowing” to whatever extent that’s so.
Yes, all of those movies were made 40 years ago or greater. The only recent navy movies I can think of are “Pearl Harbor”; a movie that deep throated so many goat cocks that it was spoofed with a musical number in “Team America: World Police”, some diver movie where Cuba Gooding shows a bunch of racist whities that he can sink to the bottom just as well as they can (a movie so good I can’t even remember the title), “Navy Seals”, a boilerplate 80s movie featuring so many hilarious cliches that it was laughed at in the theater and… “Top Gun”. The biggest homoerotic cheese fest to ever star Tom Cruise.
The navy has been associated with terrible, cheesy shit in the eyes of the past two generations while the army has been consistently kicking ass on the big screen. I see this as a big contributing factor to a current “who is more important” opinion poll.
They were made in the immediate aftermath of the greatest naval battles in the history of this country, which seems fair enough. I suppose you could count “Hunt for Red October” as being a Navy movie and you left out “Lone Survivor” (I’ll be charitable and not bring up “Battleship”). Meanwhile, the Army has been spoofed in “Stripes”, shown as filled with brutal incompetents in “Platoon’ and cast as cold-hearted murderers in “Casualties of War”. But the real military history has come out as well, and that’s the biggest factor IMHO.
Yes but “Stripes” was obviously made to be ridiculous, poking fun at military bureaucracy in general. You could switch out which service they enlisted into, and the humor would carry over well.
Platoon had tremendous action sequences, decent acting and good writing, even though it contained the same ham fisted Oliver Stone bullshit that is in every one of his movies. Those were both good, well written movies. (Casualties of War sucked, if I recall).
Any badassness that “Lone Survivor” may have lent the navy doesn’t begin to make up for the absolute atrocity of Magic Mike pulling an e-brake j turn with a CGI Iowa class battleship manned by a crew of 12 museum curators.
“…doesn’t begin to make up for the absolute atrocity of Magic Mike pulling an e-brake j turn with a CGI Iowa class battleship manned by a crew of 12 museum curators.”
😀 LOL
Hey, I wasn’t going to bring it up.
68W58 You saw “Battleship” too I see.
Well, they also had CPO Sharkey and McHale’s Navy on TV, while we got stuck with Private Benjamin and Tour of Duty, as well as China Beach and of course Sergeant Bilko.
The movie about the first black USN diver you’re referring to is “Men of Honor.” I concur; very good movie. See it if at all possible.
It’s an awesome movie, and a true story to boot.
“Men of Honor” was a good movie about an inspiring man but not a very good reflection on the Navy. Of course it reflected on the nation as a whole in that time frame.
Plus it doesn’t help when the Navy movies that come out are either inaccurate as hell or just suck ass; see Top Gun, Hunt For Red October, and Crimson Tide.
About the only two submarine movies I like are Das Boot and Down Periscope–and the latter is for the humor.
Das Boot is outstanding. What do you think of the WWII USN sub movies?
All of this leaves aside plenty of pro-Navy propaganda in Magnum P.I. and NCIS.
About the only one I really got into was, “Run Silent, Run Deep.”
Nothing recent is anything I find remotely entertaining or accurate.
Such is the nuke in me coming out.
What, you didn’t appriciate a Russian sub commander with a ScotTish accent? LOL 🙂
A little off topic, but the above reminded me of another horrible casting choice, that of the Irish actor Liam Neeson to play a Scottish national hero, Rob Roy.
We – the Navy – have bigger guns than the Army does. 😛 😛 😛 😛 😛
We also have Senior Chief Shipley’s hair.
And where else can you find summer dress whites that look like the wearer is an ice cream salesman choking to death on his own collar?
I don’t know….I used to get called “Bus Driver” a lot.
Cool Story Time Bro..
I was a one-striper fresh out of basic and Tech School in Dallas Texas…..
I was at the Hilton waiting in line to as the front desk what room my Mom was staying in as I was visiting her before heading home and taking 30 days leave before leaving for Okinawa….
A lady in the lobby said…”Young man can you get these bags??” and out of common courtesy and reflex I started to help the older lady when her husband piped in quite loudly….”MILDRED, That Young Man isn’t a BELLHOP, He’s in “The SERVICE”!!!…I just sheepishly stood there while they went on their way.
/true story.
Yep. And we in the Army appreciated the hell out of that “bus ride”, amigo.
Beats the hell out of walking, driving, riding a ship, or swimming 1/2 way around the world. (smile)
Hondo LMAO. I said before, I went in the Army instead of the Navy because I figured I could dig a foxhole a hell of a lot quicker than I could shit an island.
Don’t think the Navy has the largest guns any more, Ex-PH2.
Best I can tell, the largest gun on any current US Navy ship has a bore diameter of 5″.
A 155mm howitzer has a bore diameter of 6.1023622″. (smile)
Bigger isn’t always better. As I recall, battleships on D Day couldn’t bring their guns to bear on targets on Omaha Beach. It wasn’t until destroyers were allowed to move in that naval support helped the 1st and 29th off the beach. As you’ve noted, Hondo, those tubes were about the equivalent of Army FA.
Think you may be confused on that… the Texas shelled Pont du Hoc and steamed within 3000 yards of shore, which for the big guns is pretty much point-blank range. There were 4 US and two English battleships at D-Day… notably, almost all were relatively elderly (WWI). They were used to reduce the toughest German emplacements.
Not confused, I mentioned Omaha Beach, where mortars and MGs mowed down the grunts from positions that couldn’t be hit with guns from the battleships because the battleship guns fired on too flat a trajectory and overshot intended targets. Destroyers wanted to help, but were being held back to screen the fleet. I think it was something like five hours before the destroyers were released and finally able to take out the German beach emplacements. I’m sure the H2 channel will cover all this at some point this weekend.
http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/destroyersatnormandy.htm
CC – not as familiar with this as I should be but quick read through the article linked makes no mention of that – says battleships played an active role in the shelling.
‘Dawn of D-Day: These Men were There’ has passages which indicate the battleships were sited to the rear of the destroyers and used primarily against hard targets off the immediate beach while the destroyers were highly effective in direct fire at emplacements on/by the beach. I’m guessing direct fire through one of your own destroyers is bad form? Either way, several articles seem to support the contention that the pre-invasion shelling was inadequate for many reasons.
Might be true, Hondo, but we do have lasers.
Attached to fricken sharks?
So does the Army. We use them as rangefinders, and to designate targets for useful weapons. (smile)
+1 !
The US Navy has the world’s largest rail gun.
The guns on Navy battleships are the 18-inch variety. The gunpowder used to fire shells on these babies is in cartridges that are the same size as 55-gallon oil drums.
And let’s not forget torpedo tubes (submerged guns) which fire torpedoes (submerged shells), as well as the subsurface missile launching sections of submarines.
😛 😛 😛
Yep and it would be great if the Navy still had any in active service… 😛
Weren’t those 16 inch guns on US ships? The rail gun is way cool though.
Correct. The biggest guns the US Navy ever had were the 16″ ones on the Iowa class BBs.
The main guns of the Japanese Yamato class BBs were larger – 18″ (technically 18.1″/460mm). Only two of those were ever built (Yamato and her sister-ship Musashi).
“Big gun” cool story time. A Pal of mine from Tucson, Paul Franklin was the AF FAC that called naval gunfire in on a train in North Korea. He spotted the train in the open and it scooted into a tunnel. He called for fire from a BB cruising off the coast of NorK. I think is was the Missouri. He called for shots on the tunnel mouth. One salvo closed the north mouth and a second salvo closed the south end. For those of you old enough to remember that event was portrayed on the 50’s TV show “Flight” Paul had four combat tours in B-17s and B-24’s in the ETO. And a DFC for close air support in a FAC T-6 against the ChiComs in Korea.
I’ll see your 18 inch anything with a nuclear warhead.
Developed by the Army’s Manhattan Engineering District, commanded by US Army Corps of Engineers LTG Leslie R.
GravesGroves, no less. (smile)Hondo not to nitpick or be an ass hole but he was LTG Leslie R. Groves. 😀
Correct. My error in spelling the man’s name.
Hondo, I only added that because where I live there is a “Leslie Groves” park and a Groves Blvd.
Hondo, I hope I didn’t offend you with that correction. It was not my intention.
No offense taken, Sparks. Need to get it right.
The p!sser is, I know damn well how to spell Groves’ name – I own his book about the Manhattan Project. But the fingers sometimes have a mind of their own, I guess. (smile)
Hondo, That’s cool because sometimes my mind has a mind of its own. 😀
Yep. And most of the guys who survived the delivery of same ended up where?
What is most important is directly related to what you need at the moment. Every once in a while it is fun to point out that other services call for an assist from the Air Force much more often than the other way around. But, it takes all of us to get the job done. Sometimes in spite of ourselves.
Those in the Manhatten Projet who didn’t leave government service after World War II generally stayed with Groves when it became the Armed Forces Special Weapons Project, OWB. First 3 COs of that organization were all Army GOs, too. (smile)
Seriously, yes – all our armed services are interdependent. It’s damn difficult for ground troops to get overseas without either air or sea transport, or to get resupplied without same. And ground combat is substantially less difficult (and suffers far fewer friendly casualties) when only our side has air support available.
Still, as one USAF officer (an A-10 pilot, as I recall) once put it: “It doesn’t do me much good to go out there and shoot up the enemy all day if I come back to base and find a T-62 parked at the end of the runway.”
You can shell, bomb, or strafe a piece of ground all day long. You can even deny the enemy effective use of it by doing so. But you don’t own that ground unless you have a friendly troop there on the ground with a weapon.
In general, that’s the Army’s job – to put Joe there with his weapon.
Was teasing you a bit there, Hondo. The guys who delivered the weaponry developed by the Manhattan Project were Air Corps pilots. Those who survived, and remained in service, ended up in the United States Air Force, for the most part, even the mechanics.
About defending the airfield – it has historically been the job of the Air Force to protect it’s own assets. That could have changed in recent years, but my own experience has not included any Army troopers protecting the perimeter unless they just happened to be there. Aircraft mechanics and port folks used to defend their own turf and aircraft.
Although, there have been times when so many of our ANG personnel were deployed that National Guard troopers were brought in to guard the assets left behind, but only a couple of times in my 30+ year career.
OWB: yes, the aircrews and mechanics went into the USAF – eventually. But the folks who built the weapons also “survived” the delivery. Most of them didn’t. (smile)
Defend the airfield perimeter? Yeah, in the past that wasn’t generally Army folks who did that. But that’s no longer universally the case. Recently at Bagram, Balad and VBC in Baghdad, I’m pretty sure perimeter security for the base or base complex was indeed the Army’s responsibility. Security immediately outside the base certainly was. Never got to Kandahar or left the aircraft at Mosul, so I can’t speak to those with any certainty. (I think the Army had that responsibility at Mosul and ISAF had that responsibility at Kandahar, but I’m not positive.)
Regardless: keeping the other side from getting close enough to overrun the supporting airfields has always been the Army’s job. ‘Cause they’d have generally overrun a few Army HQs and Support Areas before getting to your airfield. (smile)
Pretty good discussion we’re having here, Hondo! Perhaps we should take it somewhere else instead of boring everyone else with it? Feel free to email me.
Anywho, I seemed to always be in a position to know who was supposed to secure what, and am now pondering the possibility that we back office AF folks may actually have had more situational awareness because we all knew that we had to defend ourselves should it come to needing to be defended.
Actually the guys that delivered the gadgets to Tinian ended up in the sea with the sharks.
America is an relatively low-population insular nation. (What distorts this image is the fact that we’re a continent-sized island–people think “continent” more than they think “island” when they look at a map of the US.)
This makes strategic aerospace/maritime power, not a continental power.
We do not have the population density to sustain a continental strategy over the long haul, nor are we close enough to like theaters of operation to rely on a continental approach, even if we did have enough bodies to spare.
We do continental campaigns fine. Who, in the modern era, has done them better?
And we should have a strong Navy because the sea lanes are important to us and we should be able to protect our overseas possessions and out allies.
But in the big, lose your nation, conflicts in our history, it has been the Army that has done the heavy lifting. Those facts are not in dispute.
Cut down to bare bones the most important part of our military, in my humble opinion, is our Navy.
It’s our carrier groups and Submarines that extend our reach.
The SEALs are just a small smidgeon of what they do, and frankly if it isnt in water, they are no more special than Special Force or Marsoc.
Our Marines are in a wierd situation in that they are not only expected to be a seaborne force in readiness and reactionary force, but are capable to supplement Army forces when needed.
Our Army is a Juggernaut. If it wants to go take a land objective it does, you simply cant stop it.
Of course the Air Force provides air cover for it, plus it can destroy the infrastructure of many country within a month.
It all pales in comparision to the coast guard Auxilary and CAP
And some of those Auxiliary and CAPs are Juggernauts all by themselves…
With Spankarella and Denny-Boi the CAP indeed would be a juggernaut of teeth, spit, fat and body odor destroying cheesecake factories and donut shop all over.
Had the Navy used a slogan equal to the “Army of One” thing that is so appealing to the self-indulgent, they would have done much better.
Well, OWB, the Navy is not and adventure. It’s just a job. And sailors still wear crackerjack suits instead of (those godawful) blazers that make them look like they’re delivering milk.
I was lured into the Marines by them not promising me a rose garden.
That wasn’t a slogan, OWB – it was the objective of the latest round of downsizing. Or maybe a projection based on rapidly-increasing personnel and equipment costs.
I’m kidding, of course. I think.
Think it might have been projection from a couple of down sizing cycles past. Maybe. I just remember seeing a commercial on TV, actually being revulsed by it, then asking, “What was that?” Saw T-shirts later, and was glad to have already had the shock therapy thing.
Yeah, that one was one of the Army’s less-inspired efforts in terms of official slogans. Thankfully it was also one of the shorter-lived ones.
I’ve heard claims that the “One” in that slogan was an acronym, standing for “Officers, Non-Commissioned, and Enlisted”. I ain’t buying that without proof.
Hondo, I remember as a young troop the Top telling me, “The Officers are the head of the Army but the NCOs are the backbone and you enlisted troops are right there below us”. (Smiling as he said it.) I felt proud for about two weeks before it sank in what he was really saying about the “youth” of the Army.
How about Finest Thing Available? Or Fun, Travel and Adventure? (Gawd, I’m dating myself.)
Naaa, it very specifically was an attempt to pander to the educated ‘nerd’ element of our youth who are traditionally put off by being lumped into a generic ‘whole’ and who crave individual recognition for every little thing.
And yes, it was a horrible slogan.
An exit poll asking about what the five branches of the military were would have yielded some…interesting…results, I’m certain. I wonder just how many people had to be told they couldn’t vote for the FBI or NASA.
I’ll just leave this here…We may be small, but we kick ass when needed AND we have the EAGLE… 😛 U.S. Coast Guard History The U. S. Coast Guard is simultaneously and at all times a military force and federal law enforcement agency dedicated to safety, security, and stewardship missions. We save lives. We protect the environment. We defend the homeland. We enforce Federal laws on the high seas, the nation’s coastal waters and its inland waterways. We are unique in the Nation and the world. The Coast Guard’s official history began on 4 August 1790 when President George Washington signed the Tariff Act that authorized the construction of ten vessels, referred to as “cutters,” to enforce federal tariff and trade laws and to prevent smuggling. Known variously through the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as the “revenue cutters,” the “system of cutters,” and finally the Revenue Cutter Service, it expanded in size and responsibilities as the nation grew. The service received its present name in 1915 under an act of Congress that merged the Revenue Cutter Service with the U. S. Life-Saving Service, thereby providing the nation with a single maritime service dedicated to saving life at sea and enforcing the nation’s maritime laws. The Coast Guard began maintaining the country’s aids to maritime navigation, including lighthouses, when President Franklin Roosevelt ordered the transfer of the Lighthouse Service to the Coast Guard in 1939. In 1946 Congress permanently transferred the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation to the Coast Guard, thereby placing merchant marine licensing and merchant vessel safety under its purview. The Coast Guard is one of the oldest organizations of the federal government and until Congress established the Navy Department in 1798 it served as the nation’s only armed force afloat. The Coast Guard protected the nation throughout its long history and served proudly in every one of the nation’s conflicts. The Coast Guard’s national defense responsibilities remain one of its most important functions even today. In times of peace it operates as part of the Department of Homeland Security, serving as the nation’s front-line… Read more »
Yes Toasty, and I was always proud that I was defending the coast of America from four thousand miles away on LOR Sta Marcus Island, Minami Tori Shima, Japan.
Oh yea, and we have a movie too 😀
Expected.
I mean who in their right mind would question that United State Army’s importance when they have all those shiny doo dadds, patches, cords, and fancy hats?
Obvious order of important is dictated by flair. This is universally known.
Hooah!
Hold on now, lets take a look at those poll Numbers.
Most Prestigious:
Marines 47% Army 15%
Most Important:
Army 26% Marines 19%
So in Prestige we got you by 32% and in Importance you got us by 7%. While we are only 50% of your size.
I don’t know what any of this means, but I think its very clear that we win……….something
Yep, everytime you deploy. 🙂
The AF has the market cornered on spiffy planes but, generally, their personnel look like crap.
The Marines have the market cornered on cool commercials and looking good when all dressed up.
The Coast Guard has the market cornered on, um, er, um–history! Yes, the Coast Guard has history.
The Army has the market cornered on paratroopers, Rangers, and scary-looking helicopters.
The Navy has the market cornered on stupid (“Hey, get me another Asian and two more Hispanics in this shot!”) commercials and, of course, gayhood.
Actually 2/17 Air Cav, we have a hell of a lot more than just history. Coast Guardsmen have fought in every conflict since the Constitution became the law of the land. They are still “always ready” to defend the homeland and serve as one of the nation’s armed services. With no disrespct Air Cav, suck it. Quasi-War with France During the Quasi-War with France (1797-1801), eight cutters (one sloop, five schooners, and two brigs) operated along the southern coast and among the islands of the West Indies. The two brigs and two of the schooners each carried 14 guns, and 70 men. The sloop and the other schooners each had 10 guns and 34 men. Eighteen of the twenty-two prizes captured by the United States between 1798 and 1799 were taken by cutters unaided. Revenue cutters also assisted in capturing two others. The cutter Pickering (left) made two cruises to the West Indies and captured 10 prizes, one of which carried 44 guns and was manned by some 200 sailors, more than three times its strength. Although the cutters did not participate in the Barbary Wars (1801-1815), a number of cutter officers transferred to the Navy and fought in the Mediterranean. War of 1812 During the war’s opening phases Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin requested from Congress, “small, fast sailing vessels,” because there were, “but six vessels belonging to the Navy, under the size of frigates; and that number is inadequate…” Since then, cutters have extensive service in littoral or “brown water” combat operations. The cutters distinguished themselves during the War of 1812. It was a cutter that captured the first British vessel. One of the most hotly contested engagements in the war was between the cutter Surveyor and the British frigate Narcissus. Although Surveyor was eventually captured, the British commander considered his opponents to have shown so much bravery that he returned to Captain Travis his sword accompanied by a letter in which he said, Your gallant and desperate attempt to defend your vessel against more than double your number excited such admiration on the part of your opponents as… Read more »
Sorry for the horrible cut and paste job….Just a tad protective of my BoS.
Folks forget Coasties have saved many a Soldier, Sailor and Marine’s asses a few times throughout history.
The only Coastie who received a Medal of Honor was a landing boat cox saving Marines on Guadalcanal.
Legans~
You write that as if its a bad thing.
I thought I was writing it as a good thing. You mentioned Coasties were saving Marines asses and I wanted to point out a specific example.
His name is Douglas A. Munro and he was a Signalman 1st Class. My uncle, who served in the Coast Guard for 23 years, gave me an old magazine with an article about him.
My apologies Legans….
I read it wrong…and I probably wrote my post wrong as well.
Munro was a true Coast Guard hero. There is a cutter named after him too.
Thank you and your Uncle for your service.
No worries, Coastie. I’m not a good writer and am I not very smart (which is why I don’t post on here very often.) My uncle served 26 years, not 23. Thank you for your service too.
Legans~
You are very smart and I enjoy reading your posts.
A lot of times folks don’t realize what a big role Coasties have played in our history because we are a very small branch and usually under the Navy during war time. I just wanted to show that we can hold our own and have held our own during times of war.
I don’t usually post in the 4 branch tit for tat because I don’t know a lot about their histories to add anything of use. But I do enjoy reading what is written about each of the branches.
Again my deepest apologies if I offended you.
Costie, you didn’t offend me at all so please stop thinking you did.
I have been enjoying your posts about the Coast Guard and I have nothing but respect you you and your great little service.
Thank you Legans 🙂
Were they in the First Barbary Pirate war 1801-1805 or the Second Barbary Pirate war 1815? I missed those on your list.
Legans~
No. That period of time was all Navy with an assist from the Coast Guard.
“The cutter Pickering (left) made two cruises to the West Indies and captured 10 prizes, one of which carried 44 guns and was manned by some 200 sailors, more than three times its strength. Although the cutters did not participate in the Barbary Wars (1801-1815), a number of cutter officers transferred to the Navy and fought in the Mediterranean”.
The 9 hour fight of the Cutter Pickering against the Frenchie L’Egypte Conquise is the stuff of legend. Look up “Badasses” and you will see that crew.
I have read it before, but will again. Its quite amazing what those boys did.
Oh and for the record there were and are still any number of Coast Guard PSU Units currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
When the world is at peace the Navy is at war.
Sailors Join the Navy and go to sea, Ships are built to go to sea. They do not sit in port until needed. Sailors do not train and then have the weekend off.
In peace time every US ship is deployed with a full combat load.
The Navy has more airplanes than the Air force.
An American ship is sovereign Soil no matter where it is in the world.
In this time of cut back all Branches are being hit, Except the Navy.
You must have missed the news
The Navy has great big ships.
The Army has great big fighting vehicles.
The Air Force has great big planes.
The Coast Guard has a great big area to watch over.
The Marine Corps has great kissers.
That is all.
(Just my opinion, of course.)
😀
Yup. (That’s what my wife says too.) (and she were a jarhead, just like me.)
You over did it on the Coast Guard, Toasty. You gave me history to counter the comment that the coast Guard has…history. I am not diparaging the five Coast Guard combat deaths and two accidental deaths in Vietnam. Nor am I taking the measure of the Coast Guard by the one who perished in a combat theatre since VN ended. It’s just that if one wants to fight, the Coast Guard is not the service to join. I would guess that if the general public–admittedly comprised largely of morons–were asked to name the branches of service, one would be omitted. That’s just the way it is.
I apologize to you if I have misread your post, 2/17 Air Cav, but we will have to disagree on the fighting part. The PSU Units currently serving in Iraq and Afganistan will disagree, as will my husband who was there and in Kuwait as part of PSU Unit 307. They aren’t exactly sitting around on rafts floating about twiddling their fingers.
I posted the War history to show that the CG did indeed fight in times of War.
You are correct that as a rule most are unaware that the Coast Guard has been in War and have gone into combat, but its not their primary role. And yes, they are not the Service to join if you are looking to be “High Speed, Low Drag”. But all that means is that as Veterans, we need to do better at educating the masses of the value each branch has.
However, if I was a civilian reading your post, I would take it that you were stating the CG was a joke, and I found that to be out of line.
I do realize that there will always be ribbing between the services, but if you are going to tease, be informed.
CG history is quite impressive. It is a completely different animal to the other Branches, but that doesn’t mean we deserve less respect because of a lack of “Spec Ops” type folks.
I guess this means no Christmas card from Toasty again this year.
Aww of course you will receive a Christmas card this year 2/14 Ar Cav.
You are one of my very favorite posters here and I enjoy reading what you write.
Disagreements happen. It is a great opportunity to learn something new, which I do each and every time I come here.
No bad feelings I hope.
OOPs 2/17 Air Cav…
Twisted fingers typing.
Jerry Pournelle often brings up the old saying that “the Navy belongs to the President and the Army belongs to Congress”. That’s because (in the days before radio communication and aviation) the Navy had to be able to carry out national policy as directed by the President quickly and the fleet had to be able to exercise some discretion about how to act. The Navy had Marines to carry out limited expeditionary warfare, but-and a look at the casualty figures before WWI bears this out http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq56-1.htm-it wasn’t going to get into too much trouble.
Whereas mobilizing the Army was going to mean bloodshed and expense and could only be done with serious deliberation, hence the consent of Congress. This is why for 150 years we had a Secretary of the Navy and a Secretary of War. Without a declaration of War-excepting the obvious example of the Civil War-the Army would not be mobilized. All of this changed when the DOD was organized after WWII, but I don’t think you can understand the military history of our country without understanding all this.
I’ve read through all the posts and nowhere do I see any mention of the Merchant Marine Fleet. Don’t they still have a mission of transporting goods and materials to/from war zones? Just asking because a couple of men from my hometown were WWII Merchant Marines and were treated with the same respect as all the other veterans.
Claw~
The Merchant Marines can be both Civilian and Military.
During Peace time their primary mission is transporting cargo and passengers. During War time, the become part of the Navy Auxillary transporting supplies and troops.
They do not though participate in Combat but are responsible for protecting their vessel and cargo.
If I remember correctly, in times of War they can earn Veteran status, but I can’t say for sure 100%.
A little more on Merchant Marines.
“While the U.S. Government does employ some persons with Merchant Marine credentials to work on various types of government-owned ships, the Merchant Marine itself is not a military service, nor is it an auxiliary to the U.S. Navy during peacetime, and merchant seaman themselves are not military personnel. A “merchant marine” is the commercial fleet of a nation, the ships are owned by various shipping companies. U.S. merchant ships are regulated by the Coast Guard, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration.
P.L. 95–202, approved November 23, 1977, granted veteran status to Women Airforce Service Pilots and “any person in any other similarly situated group” with jurisdiction for determination given to the Secretary of Defense who delegated that determination to the Secretary of the Air Force.[5] Although they suffered the greatest casualty rate of any service, merchant mariners who served in World War II were denied such recognition until 1988 when a Federal Court ordered it”.
Thanks, TC. Regardless of being a civilian or military, if they were in a position to be sunk by torpedo, strafed by enemy air, or shelled by enemy battleships, I would consider them to be veterans no matter what Congress says.