Poll: Which Branch of Military Is Most Important In Modern Warfare?
- Thread starter Shock and Awe
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well in the current battlezone of the Middle East the Army and Marine ground forces (including the coalition counterparts) are probably the most important. The airpower is handy for destroying enemy structures from relative safety and providing cover/transport for ground troops, but is made redundant when your enemy relies on guerilla warfare. Same goes for the Navy.
But in terms of conventional warfare, there isn't a number one force. Land, air and artillery is the way to win a battle and the Navy helps them get there.
But in terms of conventional warfare, there isn't a number one force. Land, air and artillery is the way to win a battle and the Navy helps them get there.
Agreed. We must also remeber that the Air Force is also the single largest gatherer of battlefield intellegence, which as we all know is key in this day and age.Wardog13 said:
The Air Force also has more toys that gather intel than any other services.
All forces are equally important in conventional warfare, you can't just win a war with air, land, or air superiority. Although i would say shock troopers like the Marine Corps can give you a decisive first strike advantage on land, although i might be biased cause both my mom and dad are in the Marine Corps and i ship out to basic this October. 
it means always faithful or always vigilent... i think.EricKINGS said:Ive heard so much about this but i still dont know wat Semper Fi is. Any explanations would be good.Agent Larkin said:Two soviet General's meet in downtown Paris. After sharing a drink and talking about life one of them turns to the other and says "By the way who won the air war?". That is an old anti air force joke from the cold war sorry but I had to through it in.
And while I know they are just an expeditionary force still
Semper Fi
Hmm, difficult question, depends if you are discussing a hypothetical war between all the worlds superpowers with no one using any nukes or a war that can realistically happen.
Now a days there are basically two types of war that occur, relatively symmetrical civil wars or border clashes(as occur frequently, mainly in africa) or the asymmetrical war between a great military power and a weaker nation(see the US recent conflicts and those basically perpetual wars Israel is fighting).
Now In would argue for the superiority of the army in both these cases(even though I am not to knowledgeable of the exact role of the marines). In the first example with civil wars a large army is defiantly the cheapest alternative as the involved nation or nations often lack the industry to build a sizeable air force. The prominence of guerilla tactics in these wars makes airplanes of limited use. And the fact that the fighting is generally conducted in border regions between countries , often far from the sea, renders the navy of limited use.
In the second case the objective of the campaign is(hopefully) to wipe out perceived terrorist networks within the region and to stabilise the region. It is impossible to do this without having a ground army. Use of air planes and naval bombardment and the collateral damage it causes will only destabilise the region and strengthen the terrorist networks as people generally get quite annoyed when there possessions, friends and family are killed/destroyed and hence much more likely to join terrorist organisations.
You do in the case of the US however need a navy to get to the area of war however(yet as this is a specific case I still put the army as generally the most important).
Now a days there are basically two types of war that occur, relatively symmetrical civil wars or border clashes(as occur frequently, mainly in africa) or the asymmetrical war between a great military power and a weaker nation(see the US recent conflicts and those basically perpetual wars Israel is fighting).
Now In would argue for the superiority of the army in both these cases(even though I am not to knowledgeable of the exact role of the marines). In the first example with civil wars a large army is defiantly the cheapest alternative as the involved nation or nations often lack the industry to build a sizeable air force. The prominence of guerilla tactics in these wars makes airplanes of limited use. And the fact that the fighting is generally conducted in border regions between countries , often far from the sea, renders the navy of limited use.
In the second case the objective of the campaign is(hopefully) to wipe out perceived terrorist networks within the region and to stabilise the region. It is impossible to do this without having a ground army. Use of air planes and naval bombardment and the collateral damage it causes will only destabilise the region and strengthen the terrorist networks as people generally get quite annoyed when there possessions, friends and family are killed/destroyed and hence much more likely to join terrorist organisations.
You do in the case of the US however need a navy to get to the area of war however(yet as this is a specific case I still put the army as generally the most important).
The Navy because without big ass boats; how is the rest of the military going to get anywhere?
Also, most guys that drop bombs from the sky are in the Navy not the Air Force. (Or so I am told)
Also, most guys that drop bombs from the sky are in the Navy not the Air Force. (Or so I am told)
Shame no-one else here realised that. And I must say, I'm amused by the people who voted 'Marines'. Gung-ho meatheadery wins out again...Internet Kraken said:
Needs an all of the above option, not only because all branches do a little of everything, but there's so much interdependency between branches now.
I don't agree that the Marines are 'more important' (even though my brother is a Marine), they are probably the most balanced branch of the military, and better able to function independently of the other branches once deployed. The other three branches all do something "better" than the Marines, but the Marines are "first to fight" because they can get in and get the ball rolling - in practically every facet of warfare - faster than the rest.Fondant said:
You can't win a modern war without combined arms. It's like asking what's more important to a ham sandwich - the bread or the ham?
On a more technical note, there's a military maxim that goes something like:
"Having cavalry to support one's infantry may be preferable, but having infantry to support one's cavalry is essential."
In other words, the ground-pounding infantryman is probably the most important component of any military, but if the other side has air power and you don't, then it's going to make his job an awful lot harder. [EDIT: If the enemy has GOOD air power, then it's going to make the infantryman's job impossible.]
As regards the naval aspect, you can't fight wars without good logistics and aircraft carriers are the most potent weapons in any nation's arsenal. Not enough to win wars by themselves, but they'll make your enemy think twice about fighting you in the first place.
On a more technical note, there's a military maxim that goes something like:
"Having cavalry to support one's infantry may be preferable, but having infantry to support one's cavalry is essential."
In other words, the ground-pounding infantryman is probably the most important component of any military, but if the other side has air power and you don't, then it's going to make his job an awful lot harder. [EDIT: If the enemy has GOOD air power, then it's going to make the infantryman's job impossible.]
As regards the naval aspect, you can't fight wars without good logistics and aircraft carriers are the most potent weapons in any nation's arsenal. Not enough to win wars by themselves, but they'll make your enemy think twice about fighting you in the first place.