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

Recommended Videos

Shoqiyqa

New member
Mar 31, 2009
1,266
0
0
BonsaiK said:
For us who are not down with the military lingo, what's the difference between Marine Corps and Navy?
For any other country, the Marines are the Navy's soldiers. In Britain, they're part of the Navy like the Parachute Regiment is part of the Army and there's quite a bit of rivalry between the two. Each has its own special forces, the Special Boat Service and Special Air Service.

For the USA, the Marines are nominally part of the Navy but in practice they're internally tri-service, with their own air, land and sea units. The USMC is about the same size as ... either the British Army or the British armed forces ... and generally considered equivalent.

To the topic:

The big thing is control of the ground. It's people at the oil field, refinery and terminal, along the pipeline, at the road junctions, at the harbour, at the airport and on the streets. Looting happens where there's noone securing the streets. Sabotage happens where noone's watching. Ethnic cleansing, aka mass murder, genocide, civil war, gang violence or whatever, happens where there are no security forces patrolling.

An F-16 or Apache or a Harrier or B-52 is no use against a gang dragging people from their cars for being the wrong colour, religion, sect, cult, gender or age and shooting them. You can't stop a rape with a 500kg bomb. Well, you can but you won't be very popular afterwards. As has been shown again and again and again, you can't see what's happening on the ground and make the call while hurtling through the sky at 700mph and 10,000ft.

The talk of second-, third- and fourth-generation warfare concentrates on shifting emphasis among the support arms but the basic idea remains the same: control the ground. Tanks (cavalry's modern form) are support. Artillery (formerly a unit of archers, then siege engines) is support. Communications are support. The engineers are support. The catering corps is support. Medical personnel are support. Transport is support. Ground-controlled airstrike capability is Close Air Support. Intelligence is support. Fox NePropaganda is support. These guys [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/return-of-the-sniper-how-ancient-skills-are-experiencing-a-modern-renaissance-in-afghanistan-1727300.html] are support even if you call them force multipliers. The big deal is whether you have infantry (always infantry) controlling the ground. They've gone from spears via muskets to assault rifles and GPMGs (the yanks call it a SAW) and shiny armour via bright cloth to camouflage but they're in the same role now as then.
 

lizards

New member
Jan 20, 2009
1,159
0
0
Knight Templar said:
They are all of equal importance.
The Air force can bomb people to hell sure, but what use is that in modern combat?

The troops do most of the work, but how will they be supplyed or supported without the others?

The Navy allows you to go anywhere, and hit any target. They also limit a foes ablity to do the same.
and shoots bombs bigger than 10 year olds at the enemy shores
 

marcus75

New member
Dec 25, 2008
11
0
0
Metalhandkerchief said:
Conclusion: Nothing is achievable today without a functioning air force. And this is reflected in most countries military budgets, where usually the air force gets 60 - 70% of the funding.
Most of that funding goes to R & D, it's not a reflection of importance so much as it is a reflection of how much more expensive it is to develop, build, and maintain a large number of top-of-the-line aircraft than say, ships or tanks or rifles.
 

Randomologist

Senior Member
Aug 6, 2008
581
0
21
Army. Air force is all well and good, but counter-terrorism and other such operations currently ongoing tend to need infantry.

I think there's an option missing; The intelligence services. Most armed forces have their own setup but they are all junior to the likes of the CIA, MI6, yadda yadda yadda. Who tells you where the enemy is in the first place?
 

BladeOfAkriloth

New member
Jun 30, 2009
182
0
0
God damn it, no love for the secret services? Those guys can even prevent a war if they put they're head to it....
 

Shoqiyqa

New member
Mar 31, 2009
1,266
0
0
Metalhandkerchief said:
Nothing is achievable today without a functioning air force. And this is reflected in most countries military budgets, where usually the air force gets 60 - 70% of the funding.
That might have something to do with the cost of their hardware.

Sniper bullet: £3.75

Infantry rifle: £300

Magazine: £30

Ammunition: 20p each

... and those are retail prices.

Challenger II: £2,000,000

AMRAAM missile: £200,000

Eurofighter Typhoon: £40,000,000

F-16: £20,000,000

F-35: £35,000,000

Then there's the fuel. That Tornado hurtling across the Iraqi desert to nail a SAM site took off with 16,000lb of fuel on board, and won't be bringing much of it back. You're burning up a soldier's annual pay just getting the aircraft to the target and back.
 

lizards

New member
Jan 20, 2009
1,159
0
0
Shoqiyqa said:
BonsaiK said:
For us who are not down with the military lingo, what's the difference between Marine Corps and Navy?
For any other country, the Marines are the Navy's soldiers. In Britain, they're part of the Navy like the Parachute Regiment is part of the Army and there's quite a bit of rivalry between the two. Each has its own special forces, the Special Boat Service and Special Air Service.

For the USA, the Marines are nominally part of the Navy but in practice they're internally tri-service, with their own air, land and sea units. The USMC is about the same size as ... either the British Army or the British armed forces ... and generally considered equivalent.

To the topic:

The big thing is control of the ground. It's people at the oil field, refinery and terminal, along the pipeline, at the road junctions, at the harbour, at the airport and on the streets. Looting happens where there's noone securing the streets. Sabotage happens where noone's watching. Ethnic cleansing, aka mass murder, genocide, civil war, gang violence or whatever, happens where there are no security forces patrolling.

An F-16 or Apache or a Harrier or B-52 is no use against a gang dragging people from their cars for being the wrong colour, religion, sect, cult, gender or age and shooting them. You can't stop a rape with a 500kg bomb. Well, you can but you won't be very popular afterwards. As has been shown again and again and again, you can't see what's happening on the ground and make the call while hurtling through the sky at 700mph and 10,000ft.

The talk of second-, third- and fourth-generation warfare concentrates on shifting emphasis among the support arms but the basic idea remains the same: control the ground. Tanks (cavalry's modern form) are support. Artillery (formerly a unit of archers, then siege engines) is support. Communications are support. The engineers are support. The catering corps is support. Medical personnel are support. Transport is support. Ground-controlled airstrike capability is Close Air Support. Intelligence is support. Fox NePropaganda is support. These guys [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/return-of-the-sniper-how-ancient-skills-are-experiencing-a-modern-renaissance-in-afghanistan-1727300.html] are support even if you call them force multipliers. The big deal is whether you have infantry (always infantry) controlling the ground. They've gone from spears via muskets to assault rifles and GPMGs (the yanks call it a SAW) and shiny armour via bright cloth to camouflage but they're in the same role now as then.
fox news isnt proganda is just mind control
 

marcus75

New member
Dec 25, 2008
11
0
0
Metalhandkerchief said:
marcus75 said:
In Norway's example, much of it goes towards keeping soon to be replaced F16's operable until the JSF replace them.
Hence my saying "develop, build, and maintain". Any one of those can easily put an Air Force at 40-50% of a nation's military budget. Research and development would cause that figure to skyrocket. Plus, nations that don't build their own planes have to buy them from one that does.

Aviation is costly, any way you slice it.

EDIT - basically, what Shoqiyqa said
 

Destal

New member
Jul 8, 2009
522
0
0
All of the military organizations overlap each other, at least a little bit. The Army has avation units, Airforce has infantry guys, Marines/Navy both have fighter jets; the only exception is that no one else has the really large battleships. They are really all of equal importance, however I will say that the VAST majority of troops deployed currently are Army. All services will have a presence in every major war, however it is usually the army that does most of the fighting.
 

nipsen

New member
Sep 20, 2008
521
0
0
..nowadays? Civilians, I believe.. lol..Like Sun Tzu says: Kill one, frighten a thousand.
 

ZeeClone

New member
Jan 14, 2009
396
0
0
Wardog13 said:
Pretty much what the title says.

Im going to have to go with the Air Force, it has been proven time and time again that you cannot win a war without Air Superiority.

Yes I know you need Air, Land and Sea units, but which one matters the most in modern war?
None of the above. Intelligence Corps.