I AM your meme <3
Advertisement
by New Oyashima » Thu May 18, 2017 9:15 am
by Gallia- » Thu May 18, 2017 9:16 am
-Celibrae- wrote:You can't foist anything if the Air Force and Marines don't exist, amirite?
But then again the Marines are alright because they don't get enough money to sabotage anything. I suppose they're just superfluous.
Rhodesialund wrote:Isn't there someone in the DoD that tells them to knock their shit off and stop fucking about?
Rhodesialund wrote:It's this kind of crap that made me put my nation under a single branch. No one can shift the blame when something goes wrong.
by -Celibrae- » Thu May 18, 2017 9:20 am
by Gallia- » Thu May 18, 2017 9:21 am
-Celibrae- wrote:Department of the Army within Department of the Navy, kill Air Force and Marines. Solid plan.
by -Celibrae- » Thu May 18, 2017 9:26 am
by The Akasha Colony » Thu May 18, 2017 9:28 am
Rhodesialund wrote:It's this kind of crap that made me put my nation under a single branch. No one can shift the blame when something goes wrong.
by New Oyashima » Thu May 18, 2017 9:30 am
by New Oyashima » Thu May 18, 2017 9:31 am
The Akasha Colony wrote:Rhodesialund wrote:It's this kind of crap that made me put my nation under a single branch. No one can shift the blame when something goes wrong.
It's funny that you think that.
Do you think factionalism arises simply because of what the teams are called? That getting rid of the labels "Army," "Navy," and "Air Force" will magically eliminate factionalism and the scramble to exploit a limited resource (money)?
Inter-service rivalries are easy to spot but intra-service ones are just as bad. All you've done is change the team names and move the external rivalries in-house. Now, rather than having the "Air Force" battling the "Army" for money, you just have a bunch of air officers fighting a bunch of ground officers for money. Do you think fighter jocks will suddenly stop wanting more fighters just because they happen to wear the same uniform as the tankers? Or that they won't shift the blame to another faction when things go wrong? "Cover your ass" is a universal dictum in both the public and private sector and even schoolchildren instinctively know what it means and how to do it.
by Gallia- » Thu May 18, 2017 9:32 am
-Celibrae- wrote:Gallia- wrote:
So you propose reducing the US defense budget to acquiring nothing but Linux servers and overpriced speedboats?
Good plan.
DoA stays but it needs a real job.
Don't tell anyone, but I work for the Russian government. You can ask my pal Flynn if you aren't convinced.
I wonder what circumstances it would take for the Air Force to be killed. If it's anything like the RAF it has a lot of political power.
New Oyashima wrote:If the late 40s early 50s gave me anyinformationdank memes, its that the Navy is dead long live the USAF :^)
by -Celibrae- » Thu May 18, 2017 9:32 am
New Oyashima wrote:If the late 40s early 50s gave me anyinformationdank memes, its that the Navy is dead long live the USAF :^)
by New Oyashima » Thu May 18, 2017 9:34 am
by Gallia- » Thu May 18, 2017 9:35 am
by -Celibrae- » Thu May 18, 2017 9:37 am
by Gallia- » Thu May 18, 2017 9:40 am
-Celibrae- wrote:I may have asked this question before, but is there any serious detriment to splitting the air force assets between the army and navy?
by -Celibrae- » Thu May 18, 2017 9:44 am
Gallia- wrote:-Celibrae- wrote:I may have asked this question before, but is there any serious detriment to splitting the air force assets between the army and navy?
It would require the Army to maintain an air force.
A Navy can do this because it has carriers and so it's kind of a given.
An Army would probably want to avoid it because it has enough on its plate between paratroopers and mechanized troops and everything else land combat requires. The USAAF was more or less wholly independent of the rest of the Army by the end of WW2. The creation of "USAF" was just formalizing an informal process that had already become SOP.
by Gallia- » Thu May 18, 2017 9:45 am
-Celibrae- wrote:Gallia- wrote:
It would require the Army to maintain an air force.
A Navy can do this because it has carriers and so it's kind of a given.
An Army would probably want to avoid it because it has enough on its plate between paratroopers and mechanized troops and everything else land combat requires. The USAAF was more or less wholly independent of the rest of the Army by the end of WW2. The creation of "USAF" was just formalizing an informal process that had already become SOP.
How about the Navy handles territorial defence and bombers, and the army gets airlifters? Support assets like tankers wherever.
by New Oyashima » Thu May 18, 2017 9:52 am
Gallia- wrote:It did.
The US Navy is now the most important branch of the entire US military, whether the USA recognizes it or not.
The future of the world is in Asia. The USAF and US Army are left languishing in Europe.
by Gallia- » Thu May 18, 2017 9:54 am
New Oyashima wrote:Gallia- wrote:It did.
The US Navy is now the most important branch of the entire US military, whether the USA recognizes it or not.
The future of the world is in Asia. The USAF and US Army are left languishing in Europe.
No it didnt. It didnt get Sea Control Ship or Global Objective Cruiser.
Or S K Y H O O K
by New Oyashima » Thu May 18, 2017 10:01 am
Gallia- wrote:New Oyashima wrote:No it didnt. It didnt get Sea Control Ship or Global Objective Cruiser.
Or S K Y H O O K
Yeah it didn't get a shitty weakcarrier, an atomic powered atomic missile atomic blasting Death Star, or a shitty badcarrier.
Sad.
The only sad thing is it doesn't have a nuclear escort for the CVNs now. So nuclear propulsion's major speed advantage is totally negated.
by Austrasien » Thu May 18, 2017 12:45 pm
-Celibrae- wrote:I may have asked this question before, but is there any serious detriment to splitting the air force assets between the army and navy?
by Rhodesialund » Thu May 18, 2017 12:56 pm
The Akasha Colony wrote:Rhodesialund wrote:It's this kind of crap that made me put my nation under a single branch. No one can shift the blame when something goes wrong.
It's funny that you think that.
Do you think factionalism arises simply because of what the teams are called? That getting rid of the labels "Army," "Navy," and "Air Force" will magically eliminate factionalism and the scramble to exploit a limited resource (money)?
Inter-service rivalries are easy to spot but intra-service ones are just as bad. All you've done is change the team names and move the external rivalries in-house. Now, rather than having the "Air Force" battling the "Army" for money, you just have a bunch of air officers fighting a bunch of ground officers for money. Do you think fighter jocks will suddenly stop wanting more fighters just because they happen to wear the same uniform as the tankers? Or that they won't shift the blame to another faction when things go wrong? "Cover your ass" is a universal dictum in both the public and private sector and even schoolchildren instinctively know what it means and how to do it.
by The Akasha Colony » Thu May 18, 2017 1:09 pm
Rhodesialund wrote:So far under the Navy I have it structured as such.
*Department of the Navy
**Actual Navy
**Fleet Air Arm
**Marines (Basically the Army but has dedicated Amphibious units)
The Department of the Navy would be like the Joint Chiefs/DoD. I made it out of the nation's previous maritime history stretching back to its colonial days in the 1600s to 1800s when it just acted as a massive shipyard/port for its master.
To this day, the Navy uses it's title (only in name) as a massive swinging dick and bragging rights as a fallback solution when they lose to the Fleet Air Arm or the Marines in its rivalry. "Yeah but... It's still under the department of the Navy!"
That about correct it for use?
by Rhodesialund » Thu May 18, 2017 1:13 pm
The Akasha Colony wrote:
It doesn't really "correct" anything, because there isn't anything to "correct." It doesn't matter to me what you choose to call your service branches.
What matters is the notion that rivalries arising from different perspectives and factionalism can magically be dispelled by just renaming a few things here and there and then just pretending that everyone will just get along.
by -Celibrae- » Thu May 18, 2017 1:15 pm
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: Marquesan, Middle Green Irthistan, Southeast Marajarbia
Advertisement