Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Marines

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Kind of a follow-up question. The US military branches are organized according to training and operations (what I mean by this is that each branch is still somewhat independent - the Navy has ships and aircraft, the USMC has ground forces and aircraft, the Army operates it's own fixed wing aircraft, even the USAF has its own security forces. The Canadian Forces have environmental commands (air, land, maritime) although thankfully they have recently given back each command some of their unique history, traditions, and customs.

    Are there prons and cons to each structure?

    Does the environmental command structure only work for a smaller military like Canada?

    Are there other organizational branch structures that appear to work well in other countries?

    Would an environmental structure ever be able to work in a larger military (where the Army provides all ground/personnel combat forces, the air force operates all fixed-wing aircraft, ect.) or would the non-cohesion of the branches hamper training and deployment when you had to put all the pieces together for operations?

    Any insights would be of interest.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by JA Boomer View Post
      Kind of a follow-up question. The US military branches are organized according to training and operations (what I mean by this is that each branch is still somewhat independent - the Navy has ships and aircraft, the USMC has ground forces and aircraft, the Army operates it's own fixed wing aircraft, even the USAF has its own security forces. The Canadian Forces have environmental commands (air, land, maritime) although thankfully they have recently given back each command some of their unique history, traditions, and customs.

      Are there prons and cons to each structure?

      Does the environmental command structure only work for a smaller military like Canada?

      Are there other organizational branch structures that appear to work well in other countries?

      Would an environmental structure ever be able to work in a larger military (where the Army provides all ground/personnel combat forces, the air force operates all fixed-wing aircraft, ect.) or would the non-cohesion of the branches hamper training and deployment when you had to put all the pieces together for operations?

      Any insights would be of interest.
      There are definitely pros and cons to each. Some advantages of a single organization controlling all the air or ground assets in a single organization are efficiencies of scale, ensuring that all personnel use the same tactics, equipment is unified, etc. Some disadvantages are a loss in cooperation between the services. Another is a loss of capabilities or competencies not deemed a core capability by one organization that might be seen as vital to another (ie, the army might believe that close air-support is very important but an air force may not.)

      Having a Marine air component, Army attack helos, and Naval air all in addition to an Air Force may seem redundant and a waste of resources. However, I want someone who is flying above me with a very big bomb or very accurate missile to truly believe in his mission, train for it diligently, and have a vested interest in the success of his mission. Not saying that the Air Force pilot or organization does not have any of this, but I want someone who I've worked with or who is used to seeing my specific vehicle type from 5000 feet and has a good idea on whether or not he should be laying his reticle on my head.

      Comment

      Working...
      X