US Armed Forces

[Salty]

Do you think the Armed Forces of the US should be unified under one commander?

Currently, the Army has boats, the Navy has planes, and the Air Force has trucks.

If all services were unified, there could be a signicifinate savings. For example, all services would have the same unifionrm, one set of regulations, elimiantion of similliar commands - ie Army Material Command, Navy Material Command, Air Force Material Command

 

[Salty]

Can you iminage the Marines, land forces (Army) and Sea forces (Navy) all wearing the same unifiorm?

Of course the DOD could authoize SM to wear their current uniform outside of formation. Of course the purchase and upkeep would be the SM expense.

Wait, I am in Supply, I could end up on a ship!

Can I change my vote raying:

 

[billreber]

What savings? Uniforms still have a cost, whether it be one style or 5 (don't forget the Coast Guard!). The services still operate under one commander (POTUS), and even cooperate with each other, through appropriate channels, whenever needed. Each service has a different basic mission to perform, and would still need to do that mission, even if "unified".

There WOULD/COULD be major problems, however. Can you imagine a former Air Force member, trained in maintenance of the KC-135 tanker aircraft, being assigned to an aircraft carrier, which has no large aircraft? How about a Army infantryman being assigned to a ship? (Compared to a Marine assignment).

A number of years ago, I witnessed what happened when the tankers were re-assigned from Strategic Air Command (SAC) to Military Airlift Command (MAC) -- people who had never worked on SAC aircraft were assigned to the "new", previously SAC aircraft, but knew NOTHING about the aircraft they now had to work on! (Yes, both SAC and MAC had "large airframe" aircraft, but after the airframe, everything else was different!) It takes years to learn the intricacies of an aircraft type, and mixing them was a GIGANTIC problem. They ended up maintaining different specialties, based on aircraft type, to avoid problems.

Somebody might say that, with additional training, "unified" services might work better. I have read on the BB, from one of our Canadian members, that Canada has a "unified" military service, and that it is a shambles. (My words, not his). Why try to do something that has failed elsewhere?

Bill :godisgood:

 

[Revmitchell]

Do you think the Armed Forces of the US should be unified under one commander?

Currently, the Army has boats, the Navy has planes, and the Air Force has trucks.

Are you drunk? The army has trucks, the navy has boats, the Air Force has planes. Or are you simply being a provocateur?

 

[Salty]

Are you drunk? The army has trucks, the navy has boats, the Air Force has planes. Or are you simply being a provocateur?

Not sure, did you change the label on that "soda" bottle you gave me? :laugh:

The point I am making is that the "major" equipment for the different services are not unique to that service alone.

Actually, I think the major obstacle would be the traditions and esprit de corps of each service.

My goodness, do you remember the big fuss over all Army members wearing the Black Beret? The first problem is that the Black Beret was only for Rangers (which the Army changed to Brown)

And for that reason, to this day, I refuse to wear my Beret, unless I am required to while in formation. Otherwise I always wear my service cap (Class A) or baseball cap (BDU)

So far, its not an ideal that seems too popular.

 

[Tentmaker]

Absolutely not.

 

[Tom Bryant]

No, we already have a unified commander: the President.

Actually all you'll do is add another layer of rear echelon people. Each service will still have to have a commander. The military doesn't need more bureaucrats.

Don't get me started about the idiocy of handing out berets to people who haven't earned them.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

You left out Starfleet.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Also remember that the Air Force was once part of the Army.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Also remember that the Air Force was once part of the Army.

Yeah but they seperated for a reason in 1948. Modern warfare like many other aspects of our civilization has become very techinical and specialized. Branches really need to focus on their specializations and unified only in common purpose. However, a unified military in our society (the United States) also is a dangerous aspect. Imagine a general who has ultimate control of a unified forces and decides to be emperor. This would be more difficult in our current independence of military branches. Checks and balances.

 

[Salty]

No, we already have a unified commander: the President.
As well as the Chairman, JCS and the Sec of Def

Actually all you'll do is add another layer of rear echelon people. Each service will still have to have a commander. The military doesn't need more bureaucrats.
Here I disagree with you. For example, each service has a personnel center. Under one unified command you would combine the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines personnel centers. Thus it would eliminate many, many positions. The same would hold true for Supply, medical, and chaplain branches.


Don't get me started about the idiocy of handing out berets to people who haven't earned them.

Why oh, why did whats his name, make such an idiotic decision.

I would like to say that Thinking stuff had some excellent reasons for NOT combining the services.

So how about this compromise. Service specific would stay with the service - eg Tanks for the Army - Ships for the Navy, aircraft for the Air Force. Commands such as supply, personnel, medical and chaplains could be all under one unified command.

Thoughts?

 

[billwald]

When the UN takes over or when the revolution starts, are all units of the existing armed forces equally apt to fire upon Americans?

Off hand, Whiskey Rebellion, Shea's Rebellion, Lincoln's War, Tanks against the post WW1 bonus march on Washington led by General ??, Kent State, Recent BATF wars in Washington, Idaho and Texas . . . .

 

[Thinkingstuff]

When the UN takes over or when the revolution starts, are all units of the existing armed forces equally apt to fire upon Americans?

Off hand, Whiskey Rebellion, Shea's Rebellion, Lincoln's War, Tanks against the post WW1 bonus march on Washington led by General ??, Kent State, Recent BATF wars in Washington, Idaho and Texas . . . .

What are you trying to say?

 

[Tom Bryant]

You would still have all the existing layers and then add one more. I would probably agree in principle, but more rear echelon oversight would be exactly what the military doesn't need.

And what are you trying to say, Bill Wald?

 

[SaggyWoman]

No need. Each serve a purpose.

 

[Johnathon E]

Think about the football games! Which would you rather watch, an Army-Navy game or a unified service-unified service game? :tongue3:

Besides, as an air force brat who grew up to become a Marine, I would miss all the great service jokes my father and I exchange all the time!

 

[Jim1999]

Yes, Canada tried unified forces a few years and ended up with unified uniforms, even for the women!

We ended up with army officers in charge of ships...............I'm glad that our military returned somewhat to sensibility.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Salty]

Yes, Canada tried unified forces a few years and ended up with unified uniforms, even for the women!

We ended up with army officers in charge of ships...............I'm glad that our military returned somewhat to sensibility.

Cheers,

Jim

And in the US, it was not unusual for a short order cook who got drafted become a tank mechanic, or a computer whiz to be placed in an infantry unit. :tonofbricks:

 

[billwald]

Some say it is suspicious that National Guard units are being sent to foreign wars while the US Army stays at home. Some predict the new flu or whatever will be used as a pretext to put the country under military control and Americans would be easier to control with the Army than with the National Guards. Troops would be moved across the country so that they are not holding guns on their neighbors.

 

[Salty]

Some say it is suspicious that National Guard units are being sent to foreign wars while the US Army stays at home. Some predict the new flu or whatever will be used as a pretext to put the country under military control and Americans would be easier to control with the Army than with the National Guards. Troops would be moved across the country so that they are not holding guns on their neighbors.

1. And I suppose you actually believe that.

2. Members of the National Guard are first and foremost members of the United States Army. Their Chain of Command includes the Governer of their State or Commonwealth, which allows them to preform duty on a local level