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

marines aren't a part of the navy....they work really closely with them though.

The Marines are in the Navy?

marines aren't a part of the navy....they work really closely with them though.

The Marines are administered under the Navy, however they are basically a separate force ( in the USA at least). I am not pointing the finger at the USA in this post as the same could be done for other countries too.

Also I am not naieve enough to believe that it will actually happen, I just think a 2 branch armed force could probably do the same job with less expense.

Soon you will need another branch; the Space Corps.

We can do without all of them if we just talk really really nicely to our enemies.

Pubic wrote:

Soon you will need another branch; the Space Corps.

We already have a Space Corps, its called Air Force Space Command and it falls under the 14th and 20th Air Force. I'm enlisted as a 1C671 with a Space 200 certification and serve under Buckley AFB, 460th Space Wing.

Back in the eatry '90s we wanted to separate Space Command and create its own branch and fall under Space Corps but was shot down by congress quickly.

Last edited by Unreal_Insanity (2008-01-03 22:22:00)

This is one of the major reasons for the JSF (Joint Strike fighter) AKA F-35. 1 standardised frame and interchangeable components to suit the needs of all branches of military. I think all (3) branches are necessary but more development into interchangeable technologies like the F-35 need to used to reduce costs.

Army: Wars are not won and lost by the number of kills you get but rather by the land you occupy. A military without an ground based Army would no doubt cause havoc in the enemy but will also never will. You need the army to clear up after the air strikes and to control and occupy the territory afterwards.

Air force: Lets face it, the air force is where most of your fire power comes from, planes have always since as early as WWI controlled the battle field, planes are the most devastating force on the battle field, and without control of the air you will lose the battle.

Navy: Although wars won and lost on naval superiority are well over the modern navy is still necessary for a number of things. Submarines are a major tool for intelligence, stealth infiltration and attacks on harbours. Aircraft carriers carry enough fire power to demolish small countries single handed and without the control of the seas you lose vital trade and logistics routes for invasion.

Marines: They are about the only group I see no real need for, they pretty much do the job of the army but from a naval first strike deployment rather then land insertion and occupation. They could quiet easily be included in both Army as a naval division or Navy and a infantry division, but due to there unique role I see no real need to.

senor toenails wrote:

How?  The equipment and administration would still exist.  You would still have the same amount of people, unless you want a personnel reduction as well.  I don't see how there would be any substantial savings.  Am I missing something obvious?

We have 3 lots of admin now, when there would only be 2 lots. Equipment could be standardized to make saving also. I realise we cant do without the actual job each branch does, just think that most aspect of each could be absorbed into 2.

rdx-fx wrote:

lol.

for the USA, you left out the branches that could be folded into one of the main 3 branches.

Coast Guard could be folded into the Navy
Marines could be folded into the Army or Navy.  (I'd prefer that the Army was a little more like the Marines in some ways).

Marines folded into navy makes sense from a mission/capabilities standpoint... they're on the same boats anyways.
Making the Marines a "Tab School"  like Airborne, Ranger, or SF .. almost maybe kinda sorta makes a little sense too.

As it stands, the 5 branches are different enough in focus to warrant the separation.
In actuality, Special Operations Command is starting to act alot like a 6th branch.

that naval tradition is what steered me away from the USMC.

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-01-03 23:22:41)

S3v3N wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

that naval tradition is what steered me away from the USMC.

Horse Shit.

aye aye?

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

S3v3N wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

that naval tradition is what steered me away from the USMC.

Horse Shit.

aye aye?

Touche.


Aye Aye Cappin.

All my family was in either the Army or Navy except my old man, he was a freakin Zoomie.. so I had to be the black sheep.