View Poll Results: Which branch and explain?

Voters
64. You may not vote on this poll
  • Army

    19 29.69%
  • Navy

    8 12.50%
  • Airforce

    11 17.19%
  • Marine Corps

    6 9.38%
  • Coast Guard

    0 0%
  • Other

    20 31.25%
Page 8 of 14 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 133

Thread: Military Branches

  1. #71
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,993

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    A marine is like any other service member, except with balls....
    so says an old friend who was a marine aviator. He said Marines flew much closer to the ground than other aviators...
    This actually has everything to do with branch specializations. Marine aviators basically exist to support ground troops, therefore, they train to close proximity. Navy aviators train to support ground troops as well as dog fighting so their training leaves them with a less focus where Marine aviators cover. Of course, in terms of helicopter support, the Army Apache and the Marine Cobra were busy crossing branch lines to support ground troops all over.

    The Air Force still has a job as unit level troop and equipment transportation and still has the lead as far as scorching the earth beyond what we get from the close air support. But basically they are clinging to a job since the end of the Cold War.
    Last edited by MSgt; 09-06-10 at 07:26 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  2. #72
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-23-17 @ 05:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,429
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    The Air Force still has a job as unit level and equipment transportation and still has the lead as far as scorching the earth when needed. But basically clinging to a job since the end of the Cold War.
    They should never have gotten to be A-10 aviators. Those should have been Marine and Army aviators providing XCAS missions IMO.
    "Loyalty only matters when there's a hundred reasons not to be-" Gen. Mattis

  3. #73
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-23-17 @ 05:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,429
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    The Air Force still has a job as unit level and equipment transportation and still has the lead as far as scorching the earth when needed. But basically clinging to a job since the end of the Cold War.
    They should never have gotten to be A-10 aviators. Those should have been Marine and Army aviators providing XCAS missions IMO.
    "Loyalty only matters when there's a hundred reasons not to be-" Gen. Mattis

  4. #74
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,993

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Army, mostly because I was in the army. I feel that at least the military ranks in general should be streamlined. Ranks in one branch are not the same as another another branch. For example a caption in the army is a o-3 while a capitain in the nay is a o-6 while in the army a O-6 is a Colonel while a sergeant in the army is a E-5 and and sergeant in the airforce is a E-4.
    There are traditional reasons for this. The term "captain" means a different level of responsibility between ground forces and ship forces.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  5. #75
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,993

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by WI Crippler View Post
    They should never have gotten to be A-10 aviators. Those should have been Marine and Army aviators providing XCAS missions IMO.
    You thinking about Nasiriyah?

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  6. #76
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-23-17 @ 05:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,429
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    You thinking about Nasiriyah?
    Not really, its was an incident, not something I feel is prevalent.
    But when else is the air Force going to use an A-10, other than in XCAS missions, which is going to involve ground forces. Being an airwing Marine, we deployed to several AF bases to do joint training, or just get some desert ordinance training in between CAX. The cultures of Air Force and Marine Airwing are so far removed its ridiculous. Everything we do in the MAW is focused on the MAGTF. Its drilled into us about our mistakes on the flightline(and pilots in the cockpits) costing Marine lives on the ground. There just isn't that esprit de corps in the Air force support mentality. I think that for stand-off range fighting they are ok, air superiority they are great, but when it comes to getting down and dirty and taking a chance or maybe ignoring a ROE to save ground troops lives they are lacking. The A-10 is a tremendous XCAS weapons platform and I am sure their pilots are adequatley trained, I just think its effectiveness would be increased if charge of it were placed in the hands of those who are a part of and understand the culture of those they are supporting.
    "Loyalty only matters when there's a hundred reasons not to be-" Gen. Mattis

  7. #77
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Military Branches

    I still think it was the wrong strategy and not the boots on the ground that allowed the insurgency to establish themselves with the strength they had. It would have happened anyway, but more troops would not have stopped it unless used correctly. It is a trade off. I could be done with the troops we had.

    Although that may have meant we lost more troops than we would have otherwise, I will point out how low our casualties were in this war.

    Rumsfeld did disregard the existing plan, but that plan was a 20th century plan. A Schwartzkopf plan. Overwhelm them with troops. We didn't have em.

    I totally agree with the rotations. If you were sent to the war, you are committed until it is done.

    More troops would not have reduced the time needed as it is primarily a political problem and the internal politics moves at it's own pace, even now we can see this.

    We should have dealt with the tribes, right off. I would suggest this is again the lack of a counterinsurgency strategy.

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    I emboldened the original sin. You never go in with "just enough." Did we invade Normandy with "just enough" as the wealth of our manpower sat elsewhere entirely useless? As it was, our lack of numbers facilitated the unnecessary future unrest. Not only that, but we were constantly wrapping around our own flanks because their was a lack of numbers to place as protection. It was only thanks to the professionalism of our military that Rumsfeld's "No Plan" wasn't a disaster. Army supply convoys would not have had to pretend to be soldiers (Jessica Lynch) had our numbers been what they should have been.

    1) PLAN. The original plan had been developed since 1991. The living CENTCOM plan had been a working document that dealt with strategic locations, social disparities, and historical significances. It respected the invasion and the occupation. However, as General Zinni reports, the Rumsfeld coven decided to tell Congress that this military engineered plan was "old and stale." Instead, a room full of civilians with absolutely no military experience designed what was to be the "No Plan." In order to sell the invasion, troop numbers had to be lower, the price was going to be cheap, and promises of the Age of Aquarius in Baghdad as soon as the regime was toppled was delivered. In other words, the CENTCOM plan brought up to many probablilities that would make selling the war too difficult. CENTCOM planned for the worst, while Rumsfeld chose to plan for the best.

    2) NUMBERS. There is no such thing as "just enough." If troops are deployed in sufficient numbers at the start of an occupation, it may be possible to draw them down in a matter of months. But stingy deployments that attempt to hold down the political costs at home guarantee that the enemy will not experience an enduring sense of defeat. It was decided by Washington that bypassing entire cities on the way to Baghdad would be best because it would save civilian lives and prevent the media their orgy of blood. However, the result of this was that great parts of the country never even saw an American tank or an American boot. They never felt defeated. The future bases for the insurgency came out of these cities and militias were formed around organized former Hussein loyalists. In the end, Washington sent more troops anyway. No enemy has ever been defeated before they felt defeated. How necessary would a surge have been if the numbers were there to begin with?

    3) RULE OF LAW. This means immediate martial law. Washington politics were absolutely petrified of the prospect because martial law may have appeared inhumane and anti-civil rights. However, did anybody consider how inhumane it was to watch them slaughter each other as pockets of Iraq oppressed their own into submission where American boots were absent? Would itnot have been far more humane to gradually loosen martial law as organization appeared instead of giving the cities to terror? We lost our credibility in Baghdad almost immediately. None of them expected the greatest military in history and the greatest force for good to tolerate the looting and arson spree by criminal elements. We alienated the law-abiding citizens and spent the next 5 years gaining back respect and trust. Of course, we didn't have the numbers to stop any of it in the first place since we went in with "just enough."

    4) CONTRACTORS. Our politicians were quick to point out the looting of the locals on their own cities, but absolutely criminal as they ignored the looting orgy of American contractors. Cheney lavished Iraq with innapropriate contracts. And he merely celebrated the Clinton vision of privatizing our military on every level. When people criticize Iraq because of the cost, this is where they should focus. It would have cost far less to employ Iraqis to fix the systems they knew better than anybody. It would have also employed countless youth who had nothing better to do than to join the local militia or insurgency. And how less likely is it that people will blow up whet they themselves fix or build? The local Sheikh should have been tasked to fix his water system with enough money to offer payroll to his people.

    5) AUTHORITY. Instead of waiting 3 years to recognize that local leadership should have been designated instead of foregoing this important step because we were entirely focused on who the leaders were to be on the national level, we should have tapped into the Sheikhs as soon as possible. Without our recognition, they formed their own local securities (militias) that worked against our efforts. Without our immediate respect, they leaned towards those who at least pretended to offer it, Al-Queda. We would spend years developing a way to earn back their trust and as it stood it was mostly due to Al-Queda's ruthlessness to murder other Muslims that made it happen. Eventually, Al-Queda made us the good guys. Disbanding the Iraqi military was a must (as you agree) because the larger Shia population would not feel the change with the same old brutes and Al-Queda would have had a far easier time establishing themselves under a majority Sunni military. This was a necessary pain in the ass, but immediate re-forming of security forces came far too late (not enough trainers). Many of the disbanded merely sought the closest militia

    6) BEAT COP. Without numbers, the Army was largely confined to bigger "cities" and all Iraqi civilian leadership was preached from within the protected Green Zone. And though the Marine Corps was strategically located throughout the Wild West all the way towards the Syrian border, there wasn't enough numbers to constantly be in every village or town. These were towns and villages used by Al-Queda and the insurgency to launch attacks that hadn't even seen an American boot until 2006 or the surge. Without the beat cops, neighborhoods were in the hands of the gangs and their law. The second Baghdad fell, we should have been in mulitple position to walk the beat, which means that they should have crossed the Kuwaiti border with or right behind the assault. Of course, this means that the assault would have had to go through the larger cities before occupiers rolled right in.

    7) FIGHT. Too many times were out military actions confined to the political mood of Washington. Washington wanted us liked rather than feared and occupying a hostile foreign land must come from having defeated a people's will to fight. Resistance had to be crushed immediately. As it were, the bleeding hearts and an election year managed to convince the Bush administration that Fallujah wasn't worth it. After leaving Fallujah, the few Al-Queda agents and insurgents remaining managed to turn it into the terrorist capital of the world. IED factories were organized and the placegot flooded with our enemies from where to launch attacks. Of course, directly after the 2004 Presidential election the word was given to finish Fallujah (II). In order to beat the news cameras, the Marines rushed through and the death toll was high and the city was wrecked. It was the media, the average bleeding heart, and our politicians that facilitated the existence of Fallujah II. The toll in casualities and human rights would have been far lower in the end than what it was and we would have gained more respect.

    8) DEPLOYMENT SCHEDULE. This is a lesson we had already learned via Vietnam, but refused to heed. We didn't fight the Vietcong once. We fought him 9 separate times. Everytime 12 month veterans left, they were replaced with "green" troops who had to spend months learning lessons that had already been learned. But that was a draft war. We had no excuse come 2003. In a grand display of "supporting the troop" we told him that he wouldn't have to stay in Iraq for a prolonged period of time. We appeased mothers of America and told him that instead of fighting this war fora couple or three years, that he would merely have to disrupt his family repeatedly and deploy numerously. In the mean time, every six months or fourteen months, "green" troops and even veterans had to relearn an ever changing Iraq and tactics as the enemy changed annually.

    The "Lessons Learned" in the Army and Marine Corps circuit all generally agree with the basics. Former intel officers and cultural experts also come to the same basic conclusions. We did not flood Germany or Japan with American contractors. We did not send the "bare minimum" of troops to accomplish a mission. We did not fight in accordance to the mood of reporters and political idealogues. We did not toss out military plans so that non-military civilians could have a chance to prove a radical theory of new war. We facilitated much of the blood shed and the struggle before we even left Kuwait. People complain that Iraq shouldn't have happened because it was soveriegn and cost too much. And of course, Bush's WMD angle left them with narrow vision and shallow excuses. After 10 years of starving out Iraqis and bombing them under a UN mission of containment, a man named Osama Bin Laden would use it as an excuse to drop planes on our soil. This deplorable containment mission had to end. But it should not have cost as much and it should not have come with such bloodshed. This is not to suggest that friction between the Sunni and the Shia wouldn't have happened. The reason we maintained Hussein's manucured throne after the Gulf War was out of fear of sectarian violence. Which leads me to absolutely scoff at the criminality of the same individuals who disregarded this inevitability 12 years later by tossing out the CENTCOM plan for theirs. But the highlights above would have gone a long way to ease a lot of the violence. It would have saved a lot of civilian and military lives. Allowed us to maintain respect in the eyes of the world. And allowed us to put this war behind us years ago. It all goes back to a need for more numbers right from the start.

    Civilian mismanagement cost us respect, treasure, and blood. Can you imagine our White House with a lesser military to carry their safety nets?

  8. #78
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,993

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by WI Crippler View Post
    Not really, its was an incident, not something I feel is prevalent.
    But when else is the air Force going to use an A-10, other than in XCAS missions, which is going to involve ground forces. Being an airwing Marine, we deployed to several AF bases to do joint training, or just get some desert ordinance training in between CAX. The cultures of Air Force and Marine Airwing are so far removed its ridiculous. Everything we do in the MAW is focused on the MAGTF. Its drilled into us about our mistakes on the flightline(and pilots in the cockpits) costing Marine lives on the ground. There just isn't that esprit de corps in the Air force support mentality. I think that for stand-off range fighting they are ok, air superiority they are great, but when it comes to getting down and dirty and taking a chance or maybe ignoring a ROE to save ground troops lives they are lacking. The A-10 is a tremendous XCAS weapons platform and I am sure their pilots are adequatley trained, I just think its effectiveness would be increased if charge of it were placed in the hands of those who are a part of and understand the culture of those they are supporting.
    It's a good point. There is a closer tie between knowing your own needs you and how they are fighting. The A-10 is an exception to ground support. Typically the Army will get from the Army and the Marines will get from the Marines/Navy.

    It makes far more sense for CAS to come from the Army and Marine Corps (and Navy). But you can't land them on carriers, so I would place them in the Army where they have a wide degree of inventory.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  9. #79
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    I still think it was the wrong strategy and not the boots on the ground that allowed the insurgency to establish themselves with the strength they had. It would have happened anyway, but more troops would not have stopped it unless used correctly. It is a trade off. I could be done with the troops we had.

    Although that may have meant we lost more troops than we would have otherwise, I will point out how low our casualties were in this war.

    Rumsfeld did disregard the existing plan, but that plan was a 20th century plan. A Schwartzkopf plan. Overwhelm them with troops. We didn't have em.

    I totally agree with the rotations. If you were sent to the war, you are committed until it is done.

    More troops would not have reduced the time needed as it is primarily a political problem and the internal politics moves at it's own pace, even now we can see this.

    We should have dealt with the tribes, right off. I would suggest this is again the lack of a counterinsurgency strategy.
    I think MSgt just said that.

    Or something quite similar.

    Basically, more troops would have been better (and in accordance with the "old strategy" you mention), but the wrong strategy(s) was/were employed in any case.

    I don't claim to have any knowledge/skill regarding military strategy (Me, military strategist? Hah!), but his explanation made sense.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  10. #80
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:36 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,294
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by WI Crippler View Post
    Not really, its was an incident, not something I feel is prevalent.
    But when else is the air Force going to use an A-10, other than in XCAS missions, which is going to involve ground forces. Being an airwing Marine, we deployed to several AF bases to do joint training, or just get some desert ordinance training in between CAX. The cultures of Air Force and Marine Airwing are so far removed its ridiculous. Everything we do in the MAW is focused on the MAGTF. Its drilled into us about our mistakes on the flightline(and pilots in the cockpits) costing Marine lives on the ground. There just isn't that esprit de corps in the Air force support mentality. I think that for stand-off range fighting they are ok, air superiority they are great, but when it comes to getting down and dirty and taking a chance or maybe ignoring a ROE to save ground troops lives they are lacking. The A-10 is a tremendous XCAS weapons platform and I am sure their pilots are adequatley trained, I just think its effectiveness would be increased if charge of it were placed in the hands of those who are a part of and understand the culture of those they are supporting.
    I really think the air force has a totally unique culture in the military. The navy is significantly different from the army/marines, but we fit in decently with both. The air force just kinda sits off on it's own and does not really fit in with the culture of the other branches. It's really a large, unsubtle difference too.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

Page 8 of 14 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •