You're either stupid or just stupid. Apparently...Mek-Izzle wrote:
Yeah I don't really get it either. The Marines seem to be everything though. They have their own planes, helicopters, boats, tanks and stuff. If anything, there doesn't need to be a jack of all trades thing like that. I thought it was simple. Army = Land, Navy = Sea and Air Force = Airjord 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.
Now if you're gonna have Marines which is all three. Well, you don't need all four branches of service.
Idonno lol
Poll
Which Branch of the Armed forces could we do without?
| 1 Army | 14% | 14% - 19 | ||||
| 2 Navy | 8% | 8% - 11 | ||||
| 3 Air Force | 4% | 4% - 6 | ||||
| 4 Leave it as it is. | 71% | 71% - 91 | ||||
| Total: 127 | ||||||
The marines are a specialized unit that actually aren't really part of any branch, they just happen to be part of the navy because they originated from that branch but in most cases they're completely different from it. Basically the marines are a first contact force, in most cases they're used for assaults via the water (aka, the soldiers that get on land from ships) but the US found a new use for them because the training of marines makes them perfectly capable of acting like a spearhead as many people say, they're a first contact force and usually just push through to make way for the other branches.
Basically they're the first people to go fighting to make room for the others.
Every organization has it's own use they aren't just there because people think it's fun
Basically they're the first people to go fighting to make room for the others.
Every organization has it's own use they aren't just there because people think it's fun
inane little opines
So why can't the Army spearhead ground assaults?dayarath wrote:
The marines are a specialized unit that actually aren't really part of any branch, they just happen to be part of the navy because they originated from that branch but in most cases they're completely different from it. Basically the marines are a first contact force, in most cases they're used for assaults via the water (aka, the soldiers that get on land from ships) but the US found a new use for them because the training of marines makes them perfectly capable of acting like a spearhead as many people say, they're a first contact force and usually just push through to make way for the other branches.
Basically they're the first people to go fighting to make room for the others.
Every organization has it's own use they aren't just there because people think it's fun
I just told you the marines are a complete different branch, their training is more harsh than that of any other unit except for maybe the special forces. They're the elite unit of groundpounders basically, not part of the army because they can also do their tricks in more than one way. "The army" is a big collective name of tank battalions infantry special forces and everything on it. The usual army can't do it because they don't have a unit capable of doing the stuff marines do, simple as that.jord wrote:
So why can't the Army spearhead ground assaults?dayarath wrote:
The marines are a specialized unit that actually aren't really part of any branch, they just happen to be part of the navy because they originated from that branch but in most cases they're completely different from it. Basically the marines are a first contact force, in most cases they're used for assaults via the water (aka, the soldiers that get on land from ships) but the US found a new use for them because the training of marines makes them perfectly capable of acting like a spearhead as many people say, they're a first contact force and usually just push through to make way for the other branches.
Basically they're the first people to go fighting to make room for the others.
Every organization has it's own use they aren't just there because people think it's fun
inane little opines
If your country is land-locked, then I can see there being no need for a Navy. Otherwise, you have to be able to protect your access to the seas for trade and such.
Each service is basically organized, trained, and equipped around a given domain of operations (air, land, sea). They are focused wholly on domination and control of that domain's characteristics in support of higher-level objectives. Doing that for a given domain is a very complicated endeavor, which requires specialization that you simply wouldn't have with a different set up. If you collapsed everything into a single service, you would still have defacto "sub-services" within it, due to the requirement for specialized experience and training.
The USMC is a microcosm of how the US military is supposed to fight...combined arms, joint operations. Air, land, and sea forces working in concert to achieve an objective. The USMC just doesn't have the throw weight of the other services in any one of those domains. If you went with a pure USMC model for ops, you wouldn't have heavy bombers (AF), the massive number of rotary-winged aircraft (Army), or subs (Navy)...just as examples.
Each service is basically organized, trained, and equipped around a given domain of operations (air, land, sea). They are focused wholly on domination and control of that domain's characteristics in support of higher-level objectives. Doing that for a given domain is a very complicated endeavor, which requires specialization that you simply wouldn't have with a different set up. If you collapsed everything into a single service, you would still have defacto "sub-services" within it, due to the requirement for specialized experience and training.
The USMC is a microcosm of how the US military is supposed to fight...combined arms, joint operations. Air, land, and sea forces working in concert to achieve an objective. The USMC just doesn't have the throw weight of the other services in any one of those domains. If you went with a pure USMC model for ops, you wouldn't have heavy bombers (AF), the massive number of rotary-winged aircraft (Army), or subs (Navy)...just as examples.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Sorry to not mention the coast guard or other branches in the OP. Like I said, this poll wasnt meant to be US specific. But by all means bring it up, I guess it could be incorporated into the Navy though.
If the marines pretty much do everything as someone else said. It does say that there is a case for some degree of consolidation. Maybe Marines could take the Army role, just have to recruit more forces.
Having said all this I done think a 2 branch Defence force would work in Australia as our Defence force is way too small. I think there are 25-30 thousand defence force members in total.
From what I understand New Zealand doesnt have an Air force, although I dont have any hard facts on that. Maybe they think no one wants to invade them anyway. ( haha sorry kiwis, just joking)
Fair point too FEOS. A 2 branch defence force would need sub branches that would cater for the missing branch, kinda defeating the purpose of getting rid of it in the first place.
If the marines pretty much do everything as someone else said. It does say that there is a case for some degree of consolidation. Maybe Marines could take the Army role, just have to recruit more forces.
Having said all this I done think a 2 branch Defence force would work in Australia as our Defence force is way too small. I think there are 25-30 thousand defence force members in total.
From what I understand New Zealand doesnt have an Air force, although I dont have any hard facts on that. Maybe they think no one wants to invade them anyway. ( haha sorry kiwis, just joking)
Fair point too FEOS. A 2 branch defence force would need sub branches that would cater for the missing branch, kinda defeating the purpose of getting rid of it in the first place.
Last edited by Burwhale the Avenger (2008-01-04 06:17:49)
Army! Army! Army! Army!
The U.S. Gov should do Space marines corps if we have life far Mars.
lol
The U.S. Gov should do Space marines corps if we have life far Mars.
lol
Merge them or leave it
"If you had to get merge 2 branches which branches would you merge?"
Would of been a better question.
Would of been a better question.
And for the Price of one B2 you could get fourteen F-22s.rdx-fx wrote:
USAF needs to learn to stop pissing money away so quickly
For the price of one F-22, you could buy
150,000 x New HK 417 rifles (to replace the jam-o-matic M4's)
-or-
10 x New AH-64D Apaches
-or-
50 x New M1a1 Abrams tanks
Let me reiterate that once.. For the price of a single F-22, you could buy every member of the US Marines a new rifle.
($150mil per F-22 , 159,000 Marines currently in service, roughly $1000 per rifle)
One F-22 or 159,000 Marines with new non-jamming, very accurate, higher caliber rifles.
gee.. which do you think will do more damage?
I wouldn't go that far, sure they spend a fuck load of money on new (arguably unneeded) techs, but can you seriously say you would want to go into battle without air superiority. A strong and effective airforce has been critical to winning wars since they were first used in 1909.Major.League.Infidel wrote:
Air Force. Big Black Hole of unneeded funds, and their job can be fulfilled by the other services.
And for the price of that F-22 or similarly priced aircraft, you could take out several billion dollars worth of aircraft carrier. Multiple times with a bit of luck. It's all about perspective.rdx-fx wrote:
USAF needs to learn to stop pissing money away so quickly
For the price of one F-22, you could buy
150,000 x New HK 417 rifles (to replace the jam-o-matic M4's)
-or-
10 x New AH-64D Apaches
-or-
50 x New M1a1 Abrams tanks
Let me reiterate that once.. For the price of a single F-22, you could buy every member of the US Marines a new rifle.
($150mil per F-22 , 159,000 Marines currently in service, roughly $1000 per rifle)
One F-22 or 159,000 Marines with new non-jamming, very accurate, higher caliber rifles.
gee.. which do you think will do more damage?
Last edited by mikkel (2008-01-04 08:07:03)
imo the military should be simplified down to Army and Navy. Coast Guard and Marine Corps fold into Navy, Air Force partially folds into Army.
I mean, c'mon.. all branches have aircraft.
I mean, c'mon.. all branches have aircraft.
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.
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.
Null vote.
In the end, everything is Artillery.
The navy is floating artillery, the air force is flying artillery, and the army is very light artillery.
Merge every branch into artillery, that way all servicemen can be gentlemen.
In the end, everything is Artillery.
The navy is floating artillery, the air force is flying artillery, and the army is very light artillery.
Merge every branch into artillery, that way all servicemen can be gentlemen.
bullshiat.apollo_fi wrote:
Null vote.
In the end, everything is Artillery.
The navy is floating artillery, the air force is flying artillery, and the army is very light artillery.
Merge every branch into artillery, that way all servicemen can be gentlemen.
inane little opines
My howitzer says otherwise.dayarath wrote:
bullshiat.apollo_fi wrote:
Null vote.
In the end, everything is Artillery.
The navy is floating artillery, the air force is flying artillery, and the army is very light artillery.
Merge every branch into artillery, that way all servicemen can be gentlemen.
you know what? shit, thats right.dayarath wrote:
I just told you the marines are a complete different branch, their training is more harsh than that of any other unit except for maybe the special forces. They're the elite unit of groundpounders basically, not part of the army because they can also do their tricks in more than one way. "The army" is a big collective name of tank battalions infantry special forces and everything on it. The usual army can't do it because they don't have a unit capable of doing the stuff marines do, simple as that.jord wrote:
So why can't the Army spearhead ground assaults?dayarath wrote:
The marines are a specialized unit that actually aren't really part of any branch, they just happen to be part of the navy because they originated from that branch but in most cases they're completely different from it. Basically the marines are a first contact force, in most cases they're used for assaults via the water (aka, the soldiers that get on land from ships) but the US found a new use for them because the training of marines makes them perfectly capable of acting like a spearhead as many people say, they're a first contact force and usually just push through to make way for the other branches.
Basically they're the first people to go fighting to make room for the others.
Every organization has it's own use they aren't just there because people think it's fun
and we do spearhead. 1st Cav was the tip of the spear in Phantom Fury. November 2004 Fallujah.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-01-04 08:50:38)
my nuclear cannon says otherwise!apollo_fi wrote:
My howitzer says otherwise.dayarath wrote:
bullshiat.apollo_fi wrote:
Null vote.
In the end, everything is Artillery.
The navy is floating artillery, the air force is flying artillery, and the army is very light artillery.
Merge every branch into artillery, that way all servicemen can be gentlemen.
inane little opines
Lol @ nuclear cannon. Air Force and navy could be one force if its a case of getting one force, I would merge AF into Navy. Similar roles Navy pilots and Air force pilots. Am I mistaken in saying theres also Army Pilots, (Marines strike aircraft)? Anyway I am British Army and trained with American Army. Cool guys. Even though the brits won ALL the drink-offs!!!!
No offense man, but if I've ever seen a more pointless forum thread, it will be to soon.Burwhale the Avenger wrote:
With modern warfare being so different to that of 40 years ago, do we really need the same three branched approach to armed forces?
Looking at it this way, the Navy has a large compliment of Aircraft and in some countries a significant ground force (Marines etc).
The Army often has a large aircraft component.
The Air force has a small armed forces section however modern war is dominated by air power.
Clearly there is a billions of dollars duplication in admin and equipment there.
I am not talking cuts to the fighting force either, just redistributing the current resources so that more money can be spent on better equipment for armed forces, medical research, whatever else you can spend money on.
Personally I think that the Army would be the group most likely to go as their role could be effectively taken over by a bigger Navy. Air warfare would perform the initial strike, then the marines would perform the task of "occupation" if necessary.
What military research/ background do you have?
The US Marines are a department of the Navy. We work alone and with all branches and divisions of every branch of the US Armed Forces. Please kids, dont try to inform if you don't know the facts. And if you do, please be accurate.Ender2309 wrote:
marines aren't a part of the navy....they work really closely with them though.
(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:
Please kids, dont try to inform if you don't know the facts. And if you do, please be accurate.
I am speechless. I just continued to read down page one. You kids that arent in the military need to stop self-educating yourself s. Maybe if I get realllly bored I'll counter every Tom, Dick, and Harry, but I say close it before the heat wave of flames start rolling. Just my humble opinion...
Ill stop here and just say YAT-YAS.
Ill stop here and just say YAT-YAS.
Self educating? Isn't that a good thing that people take an interest in your armed forces? Rather than just not give a shit...(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:
I am speechless. I just continued to read down page one. You kids that arent in the military need to stop self-educating yourself s. Maybe if I get realllly bored I'll counter every Tom, Dick, and Harry, but I say close it before the heat wave of flames start rolling. Just my humble opinion...
Ill stop here and just say YAT-YAS.
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.apollo_fi wrote:
My howitzer says otherwise.dayarath wrote:
bullshiat.apollo_fi wrote:
Null vote.
In the end, everything is Artillery.
The navy is floating artillery, the air force is flying artillery, and the army is very light artillery.
Merge every branch into artillery, that way all servicemen can be gentlemen.
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)
The Navy is critically important due to so much of the planet being covered in water, and the effect of having a floating military base that can move nearly anywhere there is a deep enough draft for it. The aircraft carrier has insured the survival of the navy.
The Marines are a sticking point. At first glance, they appear to be another, smaller, army. But training and focus are quite different for marines and soldiers. The marines are a quick deployable force, but have their entire support system with them. In the Army, the airborne is also quick deployable, but have little endurance (they are not designed that way). The marines are a rapid Heavy force.
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.
If anything, I guess we could do without the army but it would kill the military recruiting because some people are too dumb for Air Force but don't want the tough training of the Navy or the Marine Corps.