[Cannoneer No. 4]

Nice boat. Now, can the Army trust the Navy to escort it and keep this high-value target from eating a shore-launched cruise missle or taking a 300-knot Russian torpedo launched from a 3rd-hand Dutch diesel sub?

I have my doubts. When you think about it, if the Navy trusted the Army there would be no Marine Corps, and if the Army trusted the Navy there would be no ships in the Army.

[mark502inf]

When you think about it, if the Navy trusted the Army there would be no Marine Corps, and if the Army trusted the Navy there would be no ships in the Army.

You missed a service! Not only does the Army have more ships than the Navy, but it has more aircraft than the Air Force! Maybe for the same reason. :-)

[R. Scott]

Cruise missiles and torpedoes? Nothing is perfect.

…if the Army trusted the Navy there would be no ships in the Army.

It’s not so much a case of trust as necessity. The Navy takes care of it’s own, and the needs of other services are secondary – the Navy’s funding is based on supporting the Marines, not the Army.
If an Army Battalion Commander needs amphibious support from the Navy, the request has to go through channels – at one time all the way to the Theater Commander. If the Navy has boats setting around uncommitted, the Army Commander might get them. If the request goes to the Army, it goes to the local Transportation Group Commander. It’s much quicker and more likely to be approved.