Poll: Which Branch of Military Is Most Important In Modern Warfare?

Recommended Videos

Sub_par

New member
Jul 4, 2008
110
0
0
several things to consider with this problem, the navy is important if you are invading a country with a strong navy or no friendly airfields nearby, because from a purely tactical standpoint, the air force can do the most damage to high priority targets, but is useless if it cant get there. On the other hand i don't believe you can really win a war without getting ground troops in their, because with an exclusive air campaign, particularly in modern day conflicts us Americans are getting into, the "death from above" will mostly fall on civilians.
 

jad4400

New member
Jun 12, 2008
1,688
0
0
Navies, they can help support land invaions of countries and can even shoot some of their weapons (like cruise missiles) hundreds of miles over land. They can also blockade a country and cut off it's support (like the Brits did to Germany in World War 1). Also nothing is more sneaky or can do a crap load of damage than an Ohio class submarie that is stuffed with 24 nukes or 154 Tomahawk missiles.

Lets not forget that navies do a lot of the transportation of land armies overseas (yes the Air Force does some, but they cannot handle the bulk like the Navy can)

Dont forget the Elite Navy Seals, one of my buddies is in the Marines and he says that the Seals are one of only a handful of other military combat groups that they respect.

Also the navy can train Dolphins to do cool stuff like find mines or do recon.

Finally the Navy can project it's own air power, the planes on the AirCraft Carriers belong to the Navy and are flown by Navy aviators.
 

Iffypop

New member
Apr 2, 2008
88
0
0
xmetatr0nx said:
Where is the "all of the above" option? There is no one, simply because no country in the world which hopes to be a super power can just focus on one branch and expect to come out on top.
I disagree. Whilst you need to maintain a standing army and if you have a coast a navy that is capable of defending your waters Air Superiority is the key to victory in modern warfare, and was proven quite well in WW2 both in the Battle of Britain and in the Pacific theatre. In the Pacific if a fleet did not have reasonable air cover it would very quickly find itself in a spot of bother, if the RAF did not stop the Luftwaffe from getting to their targets in Britain the Royal Navy would have found it much harder to defend the coast from any invasion force.

Aircraft can not only carry conventional air to surface missiles and bombs but are also capable of carrying a nuclear payload should the situation ever (hopefully never) arise as well as provide reconnaissance and act as airborn command centres.
 

you rolled a one

New member
May 7, 2009
66
0
0
you need them all as with out the navy it would be hard to get the rest of your troops around as aircrafts need to refule often and can only carr so meny troops . you need the army to find tagets and for use in areas with noncombatents and air force to do real harm to large areas without useing nukes.
 

Jenkins

New member
Dec 4, 2007
1,091
0
0
you can make due without the army and use the marine corps instead.


I will say airforce though. they can strike anywhere in the world in a matter of hours, causing destruction before anyone knows what is going on.

nothing like a swarm of A-10's and B-52's backed up by F-22's and F-18's to ruin your day.


oh and let us not forget the stealth bombers :)

M1A2 Abrams<A-10 :p
 

gh0ti

New member
Apr 10, 2008
251
0
0
Iffypop said:
xmetatr0nx said:
Where is the "all of the above" option? There is no one, simply because no country in the world which hopes to be a super power can just focus on one branch and expect to come out on top.
I disagree. Whilst you need to maintain a standing army and if you have a coast a navy that is capable of defending your waters Air Superiority is the key to victory in modern warfare, and was proven quite well in WW2 both in the Battle of Britain and in the Pacific theatre. In the Pacific if a fleet did not have reasonable air cover it would very quickly find itself in a spot of bother, if the RAF did not stop the Luftwaffe from getting to their targets in Britain the Royal Navy would have found it much harder to defend the coast from any invasion force.

Aircraft can not only carry conventional air to surface missiles and bombs but are also capable of carrying a nuclear payload should the situation ever (hopefully never) arise as well as provide reconnaissance and act as airborn command centres.
But there are great limits to what simply destroying an enemy from the air can achieve. Take the Kosovo conflict for example, where months of NATO airstrikes failed to break the will of the enemy. Or the mass civilian bombings of WW2 (excluding the nukes), which also failed to break the spirit of either the British or Germans.

Simply put, in war, the victor is the one left holding the field of battle at the end of hostilities - aircraft can win ground, but they can't hold it. Sure, air power is key to modern war, but only in its supporting role to ground forces.
 

quiet_samurai

New member
Apr 24, 2009
3,897
0
0
Gonna have to say a tie between Air Force and Navy, shell em and bomb em beofe you send in the troops. They also have the most spectacular technology.
 

SilentHunter7

New member
Nov 21, 2007
1,652
0
0
All of them. Though I have some pride in the Air Force, given my AFROTC training, you can't escape the fact that you can't gain ground with air power alone. Of course, no war since world war 1 has been won without air superiority. And you need the Navy and the Air Force to get the Army to the theatre of battle.

It's like a foundation held up by 3 pillars. You take one away, you're fucked.
 

RobCoxxy

New member
Feb 22, 2009
2,036
0
0
The whole reason Clinton passed congress with his little war was due to Air Force - bombing runs, effective, with no troop casualties = (Y) and support.
 

Voodoomancer

New member
Jun 8, 2009
2,243
0
0
I would say "Orbitals" but that's thinking about 300 years ahead...

Although Satellite intel can be crucial in modern warfare...
 

A Raging Emo

New member
Apr 14, 2009
1,844
0
0
I think you need Infantrymen the most.

After all, vehicles/air support help, but you can't hold any territory without Infantry.
 

Agrael

New member
Jul 16, 2009
376
0
0
As quoting a general ''The Airforce may turn the battlefield into a mess - but it will never dominate it''.

Oh yeah, here are some facts :

Aircraft - Needs to be reloaded, runs out of fuel.
Army - Can last for days/weeks/months (weeks and months - with proper supply routes).

Aircraft - Need airfields, helipads etc.
Army - A base will do for re-supplies but that's about it.

The army can basically steamroll over an airbase and thus you are screwed.

Today's army can launch ballistic missles (which are MUCH more useful than air-to-ground missles).

So it doesn't make a difference - the army and the marine corps win.

Just so you know, I basically took the Army as a proper one (Full all-terrain training, surival courses and atleast 12 months of enlistment)