413, 799 99, 877 1, 261, 216 Purchase, installation and maintenance of utilities_ Total Transportation of things: General expenses, Marine Corps: Packaging and crating and materials therefor Total__. Medical and hospital care: Medical Department, Navy-- Organized Reserve: Aviation, Navy. Pay, Marine Corps. General expenses, Marine Corps, Marine Corps Reserve_. Total_ Total 1939 obligations---. 47, 728 237, 019 284, 747 474, 519 7,527 763, 400 1,387, 378 274, 411 2, 425, 189 37, 246, 852 665, 081 Housing and facilities: General expenses, Marine Corps, repair of barracks__. 460, 068. Air Corps: Aviation, Navy__ 7, 371, 249 Explanation of 1939 obligations Continued Signal, Engineering, Ordnance, and Chemical: Telephone and telegraph service and equip- Signal $955, 540 103, 000 $31,909 Purchase, installation and maintenance of utilities___ Total____ Transportation of things: General expenses, Marine Corps: Packing and crating and materials therefor_.. Total____ Medical and hospital care: Medical Department, Navy_. Travel: Pay, Marine Corps-- General expenses, Marine Corps: 10, 273, 668 2, 000, 000 1,097, 000 13, 405, 668 715, 000 10, 500, 000 11, 215, 000 5,724, 900 52, 000 3, 816, 000 Transportation of troops, recruiting. $10, 000, 000 1,787, 000 8, 213, 000 Total 12,029, 000 Housing and facilities: General expenses, Marine Corps, repairs of barracks Air Corps: Aviation, Navy--. Signal, Engineering, Ordnance and Chemical: Ordnance and Ordnance Stores, Navy--- Telephone and telegraph service and equip ment_ Signal FMF: Engineering.... Ordnance Signal Total 212, 194 2, 175, 861 6, 252, 332 27,773, 989 The comparison in question was based on figures for fiscal years 1939 and 1948. The cost figures for the Marine Corps were taken from the Navy Department budgets requested by the President for the years in question. The figures for the Army were taken from a table appearing in the Congressional Record of February 21, 1947, page 1270. Since the two sets of figures were based on different budget structures, one had to be translated for purposes of comparison. Accordingly, the Army structure was adopted for purposes of analysis. For each subhead in the Army structure it was necessary to go through the Navy Department budget and extract those items (from the Marine Corps and Navy Bureau appropriations) which contributed to the support of the Marine Corps under that particular heading. Thus, for the subhead "Signal, Engineering, Ordnance, and Chemical," it was necessary to extract items from three separate Navy Department appropriations to determine the total amount to be spent to support the Marine Corps under this particular heading in 1948: From the Navy Bureau of Ordnance appropriation (from justification)- $4, 000, 000 From the Navy Bureau of Ships appropriation (Marine share of 17, 521, 657 6, 252, 332 Total__. 27,773, 989 82535-51. -3 The total of $27,773,989 is the amount shown for the Marine Corps in the comparative table, under the heading "Signal, Engineering, Ordnance, and Chemical." The total budget for the Marine Corps, as shown in the comparison, includes all direct appropriations to the Marine Corps and all appropriations for Navy bureaus which were to be spent for the direct support of the corps. The only items of expense not charged against the Marine Corps in this comparison are those items of overhead expense which do not lend themselves readily to analysis. If we arbitrarily assume that the Marine Corps should bear a sixth share of the expense of the Office of the Secretary of the Navy (i. e., in proportion to relative strength), that the Marine Corps should bear a sixth share of the operating expenses of the several Navy bureaus; and that the operating expenses of the bureaus are typified by the $4,000,000 requested by the Bureau of Ordnance for this purpose; then the following additional expense, not shown in the comparison, should be charged to the Marine Corps in 1948: One-sixth of the applicable costs of the Office of the Secretary of the One-sixth of the operating expenses of the several Navy bureaus__ Total___ $9, 000, 000 4, 670, 000 13, 670, 000 (This figure is, if anything, high, as few bureaus contribute anything like one-sixth of their effort to the support of the Marine Corps. Moreover, such support is offset to some extent by the contribution of personnel services which the Marine Corps makes to their operation.) Since the strength of the Marine Corps in 1948 was 97,500, the additional amount to be added to the per capita cost of the corps to take "hidden overhead" into account, amounts to 13,670,000/97,500, or approximately $140. If this amount is added to the per capita cost shown in the comparison for 1948, that cost rises from $4,300 to only $4,440. The comparison for 1948 is then: Marine, $4,440; soldier, $5,967. Senator DOUGLAS. I would now like to point out the Marine Corps has rendered valuable service by specializing in amphibious warfare. I noted in his testimony last October before the Armed Services Committee General Bradley commented that he had participated in two of the largest amphibious landings on record, presumably Salerno and Normandy, and that it was not on record there about any marines at those landings. I would like to point out that it is my understanding that these landings were conducted on principles stated in an Army manual on the subject and that this Army manual merely took over the Navy and Marine Corps manual on the same subject, which had been developed out of 20 years of experimentation by the marines in this field. I shall also submit for the record quotations from division histories showing that four of the Army divisions which made these landings were trained by Marine officers in amphibious landings, so that we at least laid the practical and theoretical basis upon which the Army proceeded and did the research work which the Army later applied. I submit this for the record, these quotations from the Army divisional histories. Senator KEFAUVER. Let this be made a part of the record. (The document referred to above is as follows:) In the European theater there was no participation by Marine units as such, but Salerno and Normandy were made possible because of the amphibious techniques developed by Marines prior to the war and the amphibious training given by Marines to such celebrated Army divisions as the First, Third, Ninth, Eighty-first, and Nintey-sixth. |