Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The only real difference was that the Marines were the first wave in, but the beach was still contested when the Army started arriving.

Ground usually remains contested until the battle is over. The Marines made the initial assault and breakthrough and the Army then arrived to aid in its exploitation.

Do we need to maintain an entirely separate branch of military in order to preserve a capability that they themselves don't practice and haven't practiced in decades, when we can do almost/just as well by letting the Army handle it?

Honestly, I just don't see any advantage in getting rid of them. They have a capability that is needed, and their disbandment would simply require a new force to be raised and organized to take their place. The USMC makes up such a small percentage of the defense budget anyway compared to the other branches. Having them be semi-separate (Their command structure, logistics, and operational abilities are vested into those of the Navy at levels above the Operational) isn't any more advantageous or disadvantages than integrating them or their capability into the Army.

The reason that we continue to develop new arms and machines to use in battle, IMHO is because we learned from the Germans of WW2. They developed the Me-109, and essentially stopped nearly all aircraft dev. in regards to fighters, and by the end of the war, when they realized that the 109 just couldnt cut it anymore, they didnt have the resources to field any real number of "better" aircraft.

That said, I don't think that the AF especially needs nearly as much money as it gets. Go to any AF installation, and it's insane how much nicer it is compared to basically any army or naval installation (at least the few naval bases ive been to). I would also cut and limit the number of General Officers that each branch has, ESPECIALLY the Air Force, because it just added 43 General Officer slots, and cut 43,000 enlisted slots.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:The reason that we continue to develop new arms and machines to use in battle, IMHO is because we learned from the Germans of WW2. They developed the Me-109, and essentially stopped nearly all aircraft dev. in regards to fighters, and by the end of the war, when they realized that the 109 just couldnt cut it anymore, they didnt have the resources to field any real number of "better" aircraft.

That said, I don't think that the AF especially needs nearly as much money as it gets. Go to any AF installation, and it's insane how much nicer it is compared to basically any army or naval installation (at least the few naval bases ive been to). I would also cut and limit the number of General Officers that each branch has, ESPECIALLY the Air Force, because it just added 43 General Officer slots, and cut 43,000 enlisted slots.

I agree, the AF has one of the worst cases of organizational bloat I have EVER seen. Yes, they do have the nicest bases and best facilities, thats because the AF believes in taking care of its people, and thats good, but I think it goes above and beyond what it needs to, and thats not necessarily a good thing. Believe me, there are a lot of people in the AF that aren't happy with it.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:The reason that we continue to develop new arms and machines to use in battle, IMHO is because we learned from the Germans of WW2. They developed the Me-109, and essentially stopped nearly all aircraft dev. in regards to fighters, and by the end of the war, when they realized that the 109 just couldnt cut it anymore, they didnt have the resources to field any real number of "better" aircraft.

I think our current proactive approach to development has more to do with our foul ups than Germany's. We really neglected weapons development in the interwar years, and 1939-1942 was a mad rush to get serviceable platforms (Namely tanks, aircraft, and other vehicles) into production and available for operations.

I will say thought the BCT concept is oddly similar to the battle groups the Wehrmacht (and very similar conceptually to the mid-war Panzer/Panzergrenadier Divisons) was fielding during the middle years of the war with the USSR. Whether that history figures into the current doctrine's origins I don't know.

What the? Wow did this tread go OT! It's a pretty good analogy though, it its own way. Just like our esteemed politicians, we can't keep our eyes on the prize and get easily sidetracked, by utterly nonsensical arguments. At least here is takes three pages, I don't think congress would have ever focused on it that much.

We can go off topic, because I came up with the right answer like 2 pages ago.

LordofHats wrote:Honestly, I just don't see any advantage in getting rid of them. They have a capability that is needed, and their disbandment would simply require a new force to be raised and organized to take their place. The USMC makes up such a small percentage of the defense budget anyway compared to the other branches. Having them be semi-separate (Their command structure, logistics, and operational abilities are vested into those of the Navy at levels above the Operational) isn't any more advantageous or disadvantages than integrating them or their capability into the Army.

I've heard, from an army tanker dude no less, that the marines are still there because they continue to do as much as the army, but with much less. It isn't anything inherent in the marines, it's just that because there's always talk of getting rid of the marines, they keep pretty quiet on requesting new acquisitions. So they kept with unupgraded Abrams for much longer, their helicopter support is much less and much poorer than the army, that kind of thing.

I read that a long time ago and thought maybe the answer isn't to save money by getting rid of the marines, but to have an army that has support requirements much closer to the marines. Nothing I've read since has made me think otherwise.

sebster wrote:

LordofHats wrote:Honestly, I just don't see any advantage in getting rid of them. They have a capability that is needed, and their disbandment would simply require a new force to be raised and organized to take their place. The USMC makes up such a small percentage of the defense budget anyway compared to the other branches. Having them be semi-separate (Their command structure, logistics, and operational abilities are vested into those of the Navy at levels above the Operational) isn't any more advantageous or disadvantages than integrating them or their capability into the Army.

I've heard, from an army tanker dude no less, that the marines are still there because they continue to do as much as the army, but with much less. It isn't anything inherent in the marines, it's just that because there's always talk of getting rid of the marines, they keep pretty quiet on requesting new acquisitions. So they kept with unupgraded Abrams for much longer, their helicopter support is much less and much poorer than the army, that kind of thing.

I read that a long time ago and thought maybe the answer isn't to save money by getting rid of the marines, but to have an army that has support requirements much closer to the marines. Nothing I've read since has made me think otherwise.

That would explain why the Marines were using the M16 and M60 weapons for so long, and why they continued to use the Honey Cobra long after the Apache came out.

sebster wrote:
It isn't about making money from selling off aircraft carriers. I don't know where you got that from.

It's about reducing operational costs, and you can save a huge amount of money by simply having less carrier fleets. Building less new generation support craft with no real operational role. Having less top of the line fighter aircraft with no-one to fight.

This may have already been said, but carriers are much cheaper than maintaining a base network, because:

1) Carriers can be mothballed.

2) Carriers can cover more territory than a stationary base.

3) Carriers can be re-tasked in order to conglomerate force in a particular location beyond ordinary operational limits.

The only disadvantage is that they can be sunk, but that's why we have missile defense technologies.

The apache is a hanger queen. It does the jobs better, but only slightly in most cases, but the maintenance requirements are terrible compared to the cobra. Marines tend to find something that works well enough and they are comfortable with, rather than press for new tech all the time.

Andrew1975 wrote:The apache is a hanger queen. It does the jobs better, but only slightly in most cases, but the maintenance requirements are terrible compared to the cobra. Marines tend to find something that works well enough and they are comfortable with, rather than press for new tech all the time.

The Apache, quite frankly, was designed for something different than the Cobra.

The Apache (and the A-10, frankly) was designed with the vision of a full-on Soviet Bloc invasion of Europe with armor pressing into West Germany in unprecedented numbers, drowning NATO forces in a tide of steel and treads.

The Cobra was designed for the conflict in Vietnam, and while it can do the job that the Apaches are doing now(which really is what the Cobra was designed for)--it can't feasibly step into the role the Apache was designed for.

I also wouldn't say that it's necessarily a case of the Marines "not pressing for new tech all the time" in this case, but rather it's showcasing the fact that the USMC and USN work hand in hand--the 'heavy' lifting of the USMC is done by the USN's pilots or the USMC's Harriers.

I didn't read through all of this so forgive me if it was mentioned. As to the OP, I feel the only way things can get better in government (both local, state and federal levels) is to make gerrymandering a federal crime.

Politicians will not do what is best for the country because they are doing what is best for their partyy and the next election cycle. The best ideas are thrown away as politicians play to the fears/desires of a minority of thought which is concentrated into their gerrymandered districts. If politicians were forced to answer to the will of the people - a cross section of the people and not one specific gerrymandered ideology - we would not have such extreme views who will throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Gerrymandering leads to extremism, long political careers, and a disregard for America as a whole (the politician does what is best for his/her own tiny little world instead of for the people as a whole).

DarthDiggler wrote:I didn't read through all of this so forgive me if it was mentioned. As to the OP, I feel the only way things can get better in government (both local, state and federal levels) is to make gerrymandering a federal crime.

The problem is that I doubt you can actually "prove" gerrymandering. There are a thousand different ways to disguise it and say you were doing something else, and no real way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt otherwise. We know they do it. But knowing it and proving it in court are two very different things.

Gerrymandering leads to extremism, long political careers, and a disregard for America as a whole (the politician does what is best for his/her own tiny little world instead of for the people as a whole).

One hardly needs to Gerrymander to maintain a long political career. It certainly is a tool to aid in that goal but it's hardly a sure bet way or something that once done away with would stop it from happening. The only way to stop a politician from being in congress for 50 years (for sure) is term limits, and I'm not sure I agree with the concept, at least not in the House.

But then, I've always been an advocate of taking your time and fixing the problem in one swoop, not rushing to conclusions and pushing out crap legislation that then needs to be fixed itself before it can fix the problem. I say make Senators appointed again but that's just me.

Hat - All districts will be in grid format. Enlarge or shrink each grid every 10 years, with the census, to get the population numbers equal. No need to prove anything in court just fix the rules. This will solve a lot of problems.

DarthDiggler wrote:Hat - All districts will be in grid format. Enlarge or shrink each grid every 10 years, with the census, to get the population numbers equal. No need to prove anything in court just fix the rules. This will solve a lot of problems.

Given populations distributions squares may not be effective, and there will still be the question where to draw the square lines. Move it left or right, up or down, to even of the spread. THe Gerrymandering will just not look so silly anymore when drawn on a map.

Run the whole thing into the ground.

That way any recovery we get thereafter will be an improvement.

WarOne wrote:Run the whole thing into the ground.

That way any recovery we get thereafter will be an improvement.

I am also an advocate of keeping your standards low. That way, you can only be impressed

DarthDiggler wrote:As to the OP, I feel the only way things can get better in government (both local, state and federal levels) is to make gerrymandering a federal crime.

Then who determines what Congressional districts are?

dogma wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:As to the OP, I feel the only way things can get better in government (both local, state and federal levels) is to make gerrymandering a federal crime.

Then who determines what Congressional districts are?

The same people who would gerr....ah ho ho ho...trying to make a logical pitfall out of that. Nice try, but I don't even know what a logical pitfall would be and therefore would not fall for it.

sebster wrote:

LordofHats wrote:Honestly, I just don't see any advantage in getting rid of them. They have a capability that is needed, and their disbandment would simply require a new force to be raised and organized to take their place. The USMC makes up such a small percentage of the defense budget anyway compared to the other branches. Having them be semi-separate (Their command structure, logistics, and operational abilities are vested into those of the Navy at levels above the Operational) isn't any more advantageous or disadvantages than integrating them or their capability into the Army.

I've heard, from an army tanker dude no less, that the marines are still there because they continue to do as much as the army, but with much less. It isn't anything inherent in the marines, it's just that because there's always talk of getting rid of the marines, they keep pretty quiet on requesting new acquisitions. So they kept with unupgraded Abrams for much longer, their helicopter support is much less and much poorer than the army, that kind of thing.

I read that a long time ago and thought maybe the answer isn't to save money by getting rid of the marines, but to have an army that has support requirements much closer to the marines. Nothing I've read since has made me think otherwise.

Thats not entirely true anymore. These days the Marines get just as many cool toys to play with as the Army. The 'do more with less' mindset harkens back to way back when (Cold War era) when that was nowhere near the case. Example of recent Marine Corps acquisition programs:
F-35B
AH-1Z Viper
UH-1Z Venom
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (canceled recently)
MV-22 Osprey
Infantry Automatic Rifle
HIMARS
Harvest Hawk KC-135 Upgrade Package

As for politics, I stand by my assertion that we need to abolish political parties.

The irony of the F35 actually illustrates my point about weapons development here. The JSF program was supposed to combat sky rocketing development costs for fighter jets, but the F35 is by and large the most expensive development program thus far

LordofHats wrote:The irony of the F35 actually illustrates my point about weapons development here. The JSF program was supposed to combat sky rocketing development costs for fighter jets, but the F35 is by and large the most expensive development program thus far

Oh and it's crap, by the way. Along with the MV-22 Osprey. Terrible, overcosted crap.

IN fact most of the toys listed here are pretty much completely useless in today or future conflicts. They are all products of the military getting too much money, and not spending it wisely at all.

F-35B
AH-1Z Viper
UH-1Z Venom
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (canceled recently) Oddly enough, this seamed the most useful of the lot
MV-22 Osprey
Infantry Automatic Rifle
HIMARS I actually like this too
Harvest Hawk KC-135 Upgrade Package

Andrew1975 wrote:IN fact most of the toys listed here are pretty much completely useless in today or future conflicts. They are all products of the military getting too much money, and not spending it wisely at all.

Worthless only if you think there will never be another conventional war. Of course, there likely isn't going to be one within the life spans of most of the weapons we are currently developing. The world is pretty chill for the US on the conventional side these days.

Can't see a problem with the Venom and the Viper. Their just updates for the Huey and the Cobra. EDIT: Actually, I'd say the Venom and Viper are a really good idea. It's already a problem that we have so many different vehicles in service from different manufacturers with different parts, especially in the Army. Any program to increase commonality between vehicles gets a plus from me. That's long term savings right there especially since military hardware often can't take advantage of economies of scale.

The Osprey though I think has always been a target as unnecessary. Didn't the Marines not even want it?

The venom and viper are really just upgrade and remanufatureing packages, they are not bad, actually quite good tactically, but the price for those upgrades, for what they were was far too costly. The osprey and f35 are complete garbage though, from concept to production.

Infantry Automatic Rifle, really not necessary. How many different m16 variants do you need. I know many of them have valid roles, but really it's time to develop a new weapon already.

Harvest Hawk KC-135 Upgrade Package. Really, this is the best way to spend money? Hey, now my refueling tanker can launch missiles? Isn't that what the new f-18's, and other aircraft are for. Yes the spectre gunship is cool, but really the same mission can be accomplished safer in other ways.

Oh crap, I didn't even realize this is the budget and economy thread. Totally OT, again perfect example of what our politicians do.

Andrew1975 wrote:The venom and viper are really just upgrade and remanufatureing packages, they are not bad, actually quite good tactically, but the price for those upgrades

The thing is that this saves money, especially since honey cobras and hueys are already horribly obsolete (kudos to the Marines for still using them). By making the vehicles use as many of the same parts as possible, we're saving money in manufacturing and in logistics, something that's a huge problem for the army (the manufacturing that is. It's a problem for any army especially with heavy vehicles that aren't produced in large numbers).

My understanding of F35 isn't that it's a bad concept, but that the concept has not been implemented as well as it could have been and that development problems have caused sky rocketing costs for the project. The real problem is that now we're stuck with it because the F22 was cancelled when it was effectively a finished product that just needed a few last check marks on its report card. Ironically cancelled for the cheaper F35, back when the F35 cost half of what it does now. I think it's still cheaper than the raptor though.

EDIT: I don't have a problem with replacing a non-M16 variant with another M16 variant. It decreases costs and is more efficient logistically.

I wouldn't go so far as to call the F35 a failure though. It's still in development, and numerous other weapons were called failures before proving themselves in combat (the M4 and the M1A1 Abrams both come to mind).

Really the problem with the military today is that we've probably gotten way to good in certain areas of logistics, namely transport and management. We end up ordering way more than is needed, and operate numerous high maintanance vehicles with little commonality between them. We get away with it because we're very logistically capable, but the downside is that we've become logistically excessive.

Really the problem with the military today is that we've probably gotten way to good in certain areas of logistics, namely transport and management. We end up ordering way more than is needed, and operate numerous high maintanance vehicles with little commonality between them. We get away with it because we're very logistically capable, but the downside is that we've become logistically excessive.

The F35 is an attempt to handle this by making one plane for all roles and all branches of the service. It's just not possible or really practical. Too many sacrifices and compromises have to be made in form and function. The payloads, both weapons and fuel on this thing are so small, the operational costs are going to be ridiculous.

Osprey seams cool, but they are just big giant expensive targets, that can't auto rotate down if there is a real problem.

dogma wrote:This may have already been said, but carriers are much cheaper than maintaining a base network, because:

1) Carriers can be mothballed.

2) Carriers can cover more territory than a stationary base.

3) Carriers can be re-tasked in order to conglomerate force in a particular location beyond ordinary operational limits.

The only disadvantage is that they can be sunk, but that's why we have missile defense technologies.

As far as maintaining an overwhelming firepower advantage over the rest of the world in all theatres at once, aircraft carriers are certainly the best way to do it.

The point is more about considering whether you really need to maintain an overwhelming firepower advantage over the rest of the world in all theatres at once.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Then who determines what Congressional districts are?

You assign the role to a statutory body, which is then kept independant of government.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:Thats not entirely true anymore. These days the Marines get just as many cool toys to play with as the Army. The 'do more with less' mindset harkens back to way back when (Cold War era) when that was nowhere near the case.

Ah, I see my information was out of date*. Thanks for the correction.





*By about thirty years. Hmmmm....

sebster wrote:
As far as maintaining an overwhelming firepower advantage over the rest of the world in all theatres at once, aircraft carriers are certainly the best way to do it.

The point is more about considering whether you really need to maintain an overwhelming firepower advantage over the rest of the world in all theatres at once.

Actually, the US retains overwhelming military superiority over all possible opponents using only its land-based resources.

My point was that one of the two can be eliminated without any material reduction in force projection, but that Carrier groups allows for more flexibility; meaning we should keep them given deference to land bases, at least outside issues of political necessity.

sebster wrote:
You assign the role to a statutory body, which is then kept independant of government.

That's not possible.

dogma wrote:Actually, the US retains overwhelming military superiority over all possible opponents using only its land-based resources.

My point was that one of the two can be eliminated without any material reduction in force projection, but that Carrier groups allows for more flexibility; meaning we should keep them given deference to land bases, at least outside issues of political necessity.

Purely land based forces severely limit force projection. Aircraft carriers give you total control over the air in a given location of your choosing.

Point is, you could cut the total number of carrier groups maintained and still be capable of dominating any sea zone in the world in response to any conceivable threat (the only place that hypothetically might not be possible in the future is off China, and if so then the US is extremely unlikely to be willing to commit any carriers anyway). What land forces are also cut from there is just more savings.

That's not possible.

It's not only possible, it isn't even hard. We've had it in place for more than a hundred years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_(Australia)

sebster wrote:

That's not possible.

It's not only possible, it isn't even hard. We've had it in place for more than a hundred years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_(Australia)

+1 Bingo


"That's impossible." Luke

"That is why you fail." Yoda


To many good ideas are dismissed as impossible. There are solutions to the economic crisis however they are blocked by amition, greed and party competiveness. Gerrymandering is the root cause that prevents solutions from going forward. That foundation must be removed before any progress can be made.