BF2S Forums Which branch of the Armed forces could go?? (read message first).

You forgot Coastguard.  Personally, I think we need all of them, except the Coastguard.  Each one has its own purpose, and there is no reason to get rid of any one of them.  The Coastguard is useful, but the job could be done by the Navy just as easily.

usmarine2005 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Kind of a stupid question tbh.   I mean, you are not really going to save any money.

And BTW, the Marines have the smallest budget by far.  You want to save money?  Start trimming Air Force programs that study and invent things like a helmet a pilot can wear so they can control certain things by blinking or whatever.

Actually, that's for all Services. The AF is just the executive agent for it.

what?

I think he means that the product of the research will be utilized by all services, but the Air Force is the one initiating and funding the necessary study.

Um...  if we ever meet aliens while we're still earthbound, we're basically going to be at their mercy.  Any life form advanced enough to reach us at this point would be so far ahead of us that fighting them would be rather futile.

Heh heh...  True...  Halo rocks

I voted leave it but if I was forced to choose I'd say the Navy probably.

How about the coast guard?

let the surfers and reef divers drown, stop wasting my tax dollars saving them...

nukchebi0 wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Actually, that's for all Services. The AF is just the executive agent for it.

what?

I think he means that the product of the research will be utilized by all services, but the Air Force is the one initiating and funding the necessary study.

It means it's a joint program, but that the AF was given the lead by OSD and/or Congress. So the AF has to budget for it.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

jord wrote:

I don't see the point in your Marines. They just seem to do what the Army do in Iraq, which is fight on land.

If you're going to look at the branches like weapons, you could call the Marines a giant fucking hammer, with only as much finesse as it takes to kill the enemy. The Army is a different animal.

dayarath wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Because it's wise to wait and put something together only when you needed it yesterday.

well I suppose we will have interplanetair wars inbetween our own solar system before we meet other lifeforms, but there ofc is a small possibility there weren't any wars we never needed starwars ships and we meet some kind of hostile lifeform. Altough I doubt the lifeforms we first meet will be hostile, the ones that'll be hostile will be us probably.

Is possibly a form of arrogance to assume, provided that aliens are present in this galaxy, that we are the only hostile species. Besides which, once we begin to colonize other worlds in our system, we will have no choice but to militarize space.

Seeing how incredibly paranoid we are over hostile aliens I'd say we might turn out hostile, the moment we have trouble communicating with them we'll treat them as hostile untill we know otherwise (not that that's a very wrong thing to do.) but in these situations stupid mistakes happen which might lead to us being the agressor.

FEOS wrote:

imortal wrote:

As important as artillery is (and I am a former redleg myself), the purpose of every branch of the army (and the air force) is to support the infantry.  You can force someone to cower from bombs, but you cannot reliably control theri actions without controlling the terrian.  "Boots on the Ground." Everything else is support.  Armor provides a shock force to force an opening for the infantry.  Artillery provides fires to cover and support the infantry.  Aviation transports troops, and takes out the enemy threatening our troops.

Very Army-centric perspective. While you have a point about controlling terrain, there have been many examples in the past 10-20 years that show it's becoming less critical. Allied Force, Desert Fox (which you mention below), the entire Desert Storm campaign minus 100 hours.

Yes, it is very army-centric of me.  I spent 14 years in the army, and I do not appologize for my attitude.  The best I can do is admit that it is my opinion, and not try to pass it off as the ed-all-be-all of military wisdom.  I do not believe I have ever said otherwise.  That being said, Desert Storm was not taken to its logical conclusion, which should have been the occupation of Iraq and change of lraqi leadership following its surrender.  You can yell back and forth over the reasons WHY, but Desert Storm ended early, and the mess we have in Iraq today is the direct result.  Following WW2, political bodies were reluctant to take wars to their historical conclusion, which is a formal, signed peace treaty, or the destruction of the losing nation.  With the creation of the UN, the situations became.. mush.  Korea has only had a cease fire in place since the 50's. Vietnam was a nightmare trying to find a conclusion (most use the pullout of the US, but South Vietnam continued to fight).  Desert Storm was only the most recent.  I will say that it is not all the UN; the superpowers, with their ability so seemingly wipe any nation off the earth if they were threatened, led the goverments of most the world into unknown territory, politically.

FEOS wrote:

imortal wrote:

Even the Air Force, if look look strategically, supports the infantry.  First, they take out targets that threaten their control of the sky.  Then they take out forces that threaten our support areas, then they attack forces that can resist our forces.  They also attack infrastructure to force the enemy into confusion, and the reduce the effectiveness of the enemy to resist attack.  But the air force has also developed their own stragegy for deep delivery of munitions to accomplish political, and not simply tactical or strategic ends by forcing compliance (Operation Desert Fox- which I think was actually a naval operation, IIRC)

So nuclear-capable bombers are there to support the infantry? What about ICBMs (you did say "look strategically")? That is the kind of mindset that stifles joint operations. Right now, the primary role of the AF in Iraq and Afghanistan is to support the ground forces. That is all well and good. But if you look beyond those two AOs, you'll see that air and sea power are the primary forces in a Pacific scenario (ie, straits of Taiwan or similar).

Yes, my analysis does tend to break down at the nuclear level.  But nuclear delivery methods seem to me to be more at the level of political, and not even strategic thinking.  Especially when you get to the level of ICBMs, sub based medium ranged missiles, and ALCMs, you are no longer fighting a war, but destoying a nation.  MAD was not a strategy, it was political blackmail.  Yes, it worked, so I am not arguing its effectiveness.  But its use was not a military descision; the miltary were only the delivery system.

FEOS wrote:

Desert Fox was an air component-run operation. Read AF. The majority of the aircraft doing the strikes were AF (both US and RAF). Tomahawks were the primary USN contribution, as a carrier only holds ~ 2 squadrons of strikers.

Okay, I will go with your take on it; my memory of it is spotty (I was in a training excercise in Germany at the time), and can't be arsed to look it up now.

FEOS wrote:

imortal wrote:

Now, I am not saying that our current system is the ideal, end-all-be-all of miltary setups.  I have no doubt that different structures can work as well or even better.  But our system WORKS.  At least, for us.  Different nations have different requirements, so will have different force organizational structures.

Spot on.

Thanks for that, at least.

Last edited by imortal (2008-01-05 10:26:14)

Commie Killer wrote:

Heres my theory, we need all. Air force softens the enemy up, the Navy takes us there, the Marines take it, and the Army holds it.

(Spelling?)

not true at all.   The first forces in Iraq for OIF were Army Special Operations.  The main body assualt during OIF from kuwait was led by the army.   Phantom Fury was led by the army.  Everyone knows the USMC wins the PR war.  But the fact remains, mission will always dictate how you will use the forces available.

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

All of them. War is evil.

You can tell that to the Canadians when they decide your backyard is a good place for some more maple trees.

Maple trees are beautiful so I don't see the problem.

There's the only liberal I know who can't see a problem.

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

US Army is the best, mods could close this topic now.  Anyone who posts below this is wrong.

USMC....smooch

they ran the show but army units served as the lead element in much of the assault.