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

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.

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).

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.

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.

doesnt the AF use modified M16's that fire .22s instead of the 5.56X45 for weapons qualification

Army! Hooah!

Army Air Core has helicopters here. That's as far as it goes.

Army is also the only branch where you don't need to be an officer to be a pilot.

Go Army.

Play alittle BF2.. and COD4.. everybody is a U.S. Military Expert.

Jibbles wrote:

Go through Marine boot camp and Army basic and say they're the same.

Or just watch the DVD "Ears, Open. Eyeballs, Click"

or, make sure you let people know that combat MOS's go through different basic training programs than do support occupations.  my basic was 3 times longer than a POG's.  its called OSUT.

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.

mikkel wrote:

In short, for critical purposes, never rely on anything you can't control, if you can avoid it.

Charlie Beckwith (creator of the Delta Force) learned that the hard way in Iran, 1980.

_j5689_ wrote:

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.

Minimum Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery Scores Required for Military Enlistment

Air Force - 36. Considerations made for otherwise qualified candidates with scores as low as 21
Navy - 35, for active duty (reserves require a 31). Considerations made. USMC Option - 32 (considerations made for scores as low as 25)
Army - 31

As shown from above, the USAF takes those with lower scores than the Marines, most likely just the opposite most of you think.

Seeing as the ASVAB is on a 99 point scale, all of these req's are low, meaning hardly anyone is 'too dumb for the Air Force.' I recently took it through my high school, and scored a 98. Am I a pasty, fat nerd who aspires to huddle over a USAF computer screen? No. I'm on the varsity cross country and lacrosse teams. I plan on a career in the Navy, most likely through the US Naval Academy.  Before the sniping @ the navy and 'easy/weak physical training', I've passed both the Army PRT and the Naval Academy's Candidate Fitness Assessment, so no, im no pussy.

if you want the job done, send in the army.  if you want the job done right send in the MARINE CORPS!!!

i dont know if this fact is still true or not, but back in the 90's when i was in, the Corps turned down more ppl per year than mcdonalds hired

R0lyP0ly wrote:

Air Force - 36. Considerations made for otherwise qualified candidates with scores as low as 21
Navy - 35, for active duty (reserves require a 31). Considerations made. USMC Option - 32 (considerations made for scores as low as 25)
Army - 31

As shown from above, the USAF takes those with lower scores than the Marines, most likely just the opposite most of you think.

36>32. That is all.

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

doesnt the AF use modified M16's that fire .22s instead of the 5.56X45 for weapons qualification

Nope. We fire standard issue A2s and M4s. Plus the lovely 9 mil, of course.

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.