Restructuring the Military
- Thread starter Waterdog
- Start date
untill quite recently (ie 70 years ago)
that was the case, WW2 really put paid to it.
darn few communities have the room for a division sized manuver area. also when the hometown unit gets hit real bad....bad press ouch. some National gaurd units federalized in '39 we not combat ready until all the officers and nco's were repalced or tranferred to other units.
but i still miss having the hometown unit too.
rms/pa
that was the case, WW2 really put paid to it.
darn few communities have the room for a division sized manuver area. also when the hometown unit gets hit real bad....bad press ouch. some National gaurd units federalized in '39 we not combat ready until all the officers and nco's were repalced or tranferred to other units.
but i still miss having the hometown unit too.
rms/pa
I was in a hurry when I wrote the original
post. Readiness could be solved by rotating a percentage of the troops, and making military service mandatory for men and women. Of course they would not be allowed into combat, but should serve like the men. Another thing that should be changed is not letting married personnel go over seas, what a waste of money. Some of these couples haul their furniture, cars and other personal belongings
half way around the world. Disallowing marriage on overseas duty will keep the troops streamlined and ready for action, and help maintaining the military readiness. If soldiers were close to home, it would be more difficult for the bureacracy to implement an unlawful martial law.
Please, more input.
Waterdog
post. Readiness could be solved by rotating a percentage of the troops, and making military service mandatory for men and women. Of course they would not be allowed into combat, but should serve like the men. Another thing that should be changed is not letting married personnel go over seas, what a waste of money. Some of these couples haul their furniture, cars and other personal belongings
half way around the world. Disallowing marriage on overseas duty will keep the troops streamlined and ready for action, and help maintaining the military readiness. If soldiers were close to home, it would be more difficult for the bureacracy to implement an unlawful martial law.
Please, more input.
Waterdog
Danger Dave
New member
They used to draw troops regionally. The idea was that troops who grew up together would be more willing to fight for each other. The best example of why they don't anymore happened in Britain during WWI.
They used to post the casualty lists at the local post offices & churches. During major offenses, the casualty lists would include the better part of a town's young men. Imaging seeing the list of your son, along with everyone he went to school with, all KIA within a few hours of each other. Basically, many towns had an entire generation of young men annihilated all at once. When news reached home, there wasn't anyone left to console the families - everyone had a relative to grieve.
Kinda rough on morale - especially when they have to start recruiting their younger brothers.
They used to post the casualty lists at the local post offices & churches. During major offenses, the casualty lists would include the better part of a town's young men. Imaging seeing the list of your son, along with everyone he went to school with, all KIA within a few hours of each other. Basically, many towns had an entire generation of young men annihilated all at once. When news reached home, there wasn't anyone left to console the families - everyone had a relative to grieve.
Kinda rough on morale - especially when they have to start recruiting their younger brothers.
CoastieN70
New member
Waterdog,
Welcome to the "ALL VOULENTEER SERVICES".
It would be logisticly impossible to only let "Single" troops be stationed overseas.
Oh sure the Marines do it for a year at a time to a large percentage of their Okanowa(sp.) troops and the Army does it for most of their Korea troops but this is for a year only and the cost of rotation is herendous.
Economicly it is cheeper to have a Service Member move overseas with his family for three or more years than to rotate troops every 12 months or so. And with the All Voulenteer Service a LARGE % of the recruits are married, unlike the "Draft Days" when the majority of recruits were single.
Reality suxs!
Now for structuring regionally, if there is no base in your region chances are the good citizens of that region do not want one. There was a time when all bases/posts were in the middle of nowhere or in an area no one wanted near a metropolitan area. That is just not the case anymore. Any base/post in a major metrolitan area is actively sought by the community for housing or recreational property. Now the cities have over run the bases and the couminity complains to no end about the bases and their noise. Move to uninhabited areas you say? Over the tree huggers dead bodies! Hell the bases already in remote areas are being beseiged by the Eco Freeks as it is!
Enough said.
Welcome to the "ALL VOULENTEER SERVICES".
It would be logisticly impossible to only let "Single" troops be stationed overseas.
Oh sure the Marines do it for a year at a time to a large percentage of their Okanowa(sp.) troops and the Army does it for most of their Korea troops but this is for a year only and the cost of rotation is herendous.
Economicly it is cheeper to have a Service Member move overseas with his family for three or more years than to rotate troops every 12 months or so. And with the All Voulenteer Service a LARGE % of the recruits are married, unlike the "Draft Days" when the majority of recruits were single.
Reality suxs!
Now for structuring regionally, if there is no base in your region chances are the good citizens of that region do not want one. There was a time when all bases/posts were in the middle of nowhere or in an area no one wanted near a metropolitan area. That is just not the case anymore. Any base/post in a major metrolitan area is actively sought by the community for housing or recreational property. Now the cities have over run the bases and the couminity complains to no end about the bases and their noise. Move to uninhabited areas you say? Over the tree huggers dead bodies! Hell the bases already in remote areas are being beseiged by the Eco Freeks as it is!
Enough said.
swampgator
New member
re:
Overseas Assignments & Restructing
In the Army's case almost all of the tours to Korea, and a lot to Germany are unaccompanied tours ie no spouse, kids, etc. The amount of household goods a single soldier can ship is also limited.
Command sponsored tours ie with families are rare in Korea, I think due to nature of being so close to N. Korea, and past history of being overrun so quickly.
Having all units within American borders is not necessarily a good thing. Remember how long it took to get all the troops into Saudi, during the '91 Sand Shoot? Granted the 82nd Airborne Div and 18 Airborne Corps deployed immediately. However they lack the combat firepower to hold an area by themselves. Having the ability to pull Armored and Mechanized units from an area such as Germany to reinforce them makes more sense than to try pull a heavy unit from the states.
Granted to US now has equipment prepositioned
at various location throughout the world, such that a stateside unit could muster its troops and deploy carrying only their personal equipment.
Also consider that since the end of Desert Storm, the military has been downsized so that many of the traditional overseas assignments no longer exist, The Berlin Brigade comes instantly to mind. Several divisional sized formations were inactivated in Germany alone. So in essence the military has been restructed.
The problem is that we don't have an "ENEMY" anymore. Sure there are the constant brush fire wars ie Kosovo, Bosnia, and Somolia, but the large Soviet threat no longer exists.
I read recently where the Army is looking to streamline its forces along the lines of the Marine Corps and IMHO loose a majority of its heavy assets, for more perceived mobility and flexibility.
So there are always pros and cons of any restructoring.
Overseas Assignments & Restructing
In the Army's case almost all of the tours to Korea, and a lot to Germany are unaccompanied tours ie no spouse, kids, etc. The amount of household goods a single soldier can ship is also limited.
Command sponsored tours ie with families are rare in Korea, I think due to nature of being so close to N. Korea, and past history of being overrun so quickly.
Having all units within American borders is not necessarily a good thing. Remember how long it took to get all the troops into Saudi, during the '91 Sand Shoot? Granted the 82nd Airborne Div and 18 Airborne Corps deployed immediately. However they lack the combat firepower to hold an area by themselves. Having the ability to pull Armored and Mechanized units from an area such as Germany to reinforce them makes more sense than to try pull a heavy unit from the states.
Granted to US now has equipment prepositioned
at various location throughout the world, such that a stateside unit could muster its troops and deploy carrying only their personal equipment.
Also consider that since the end of Desert Storm, the military has been downsized so that many of the traditional overseas assignments no longer exist, The Berlin Brigade comes instantly to mind. Several divisional sized formations were inactivated in Germany alone. So in essence the military has been restructed.
The problem is that we don't have an "ENEMY" anymore. Sure there are the constant brush fire wars ie Kosovo, Bosnia, and Somolia, but the large Soviet threat no longer exists.
I read recently where the Army is looking to streamline its forces along the lines of the Marine Corps and IMHO loose a majority of its heavy assets, for more perceived mobility and flexibility.
So there are always pros and cons of any restructoring.
You know, I heard something about this but didn't pay much attention to it at the time because it sounded like a whole lot of nonsense. It seems that some Congressman or Senator was confused as to why a Navy Captain was wearing a Colonel's insignia 
And she wants to standardize the ranks & insignia across all branches of the military to end the confusion (I didn't realize that there was any confusion) and to get us more in line with our UN military partners ...
... If anyone is interested, I'll try to find a link to the whole story if it's still around.
[This message has been edited by FUD (edited June 14, 2000).]
And she wants to standardize the ranks & insignia across all branches of the military to end the confusion (I didn't realize that there was any confusion) and to get us more in line with our UN military partners ...
... If anyone is interested, I'll try to find a link to the whole story if it's still around.
[This message has been edited by FUD (edited June 14, 2000).]
George Hill
Staff Alumnus
Thats just dang retarded.
She needed to stay out of other peoples business. Freaking Poli-Tic-ians...
She needed to stay out of other peoples business. Freaking Poli-Tic-ians...
FUD -
Don't know the source for your chart, but it has an error on the Navy side. A Navy one-star is referred to as "Rear Admiral, Lower-half," with a two-star being either "Rear Admiral, Upper-half," or just "Rear Admiral." "Commodore" is not a rank, but rather a title, and is generally a Captain (O-6) in command of a squadron of (usually) destroyers and frigates.
------------------
"...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
Luke 22:36
"An armed society is a polite society."
Robert Heinlein
Don't know the source for your chart, but it has an error on the Navy side. A Navy one-star is referred to as "Rear Admiral, Lower-half," with a two-star being either "Rear Admiral, Upper-half," or just "Rear Admiral." "Commodore" is not a rank, but rather a title, and is generally a Captain (O-6) in command of a squadron of (usually) destroyers and frigates.
------------------
"...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
Luke 22:36
"An armed society is a polite society."
Robert Heinlein
George Dickel at Work
New member
Most of the reasons why stationing people near their home will not work have already been mentioned. After 21 years in the Army, I realized a few things. One big reason it won't work is that the upper echelons of the military don't give a rat's behind about how hard the soldier/sailor/airman has it. Officers who truly care about their men usually don't reach the upper levels of authority. They either incur the wrath of their boss because they take up for the men and subsequently receive low efficiency ratings that slow their advancement, or they get out at the first opportunity. Most politicians look upon the military as a necessary evil and it's members as ignorant slobs who can't make in the civilian world. They will express all kinds of concern and admiration for the soldier but their words have no more meaning than "I feel your pain." The system could be made to work a lot better is there was really a sincere desire.
Waterdog, I am sorry to say but, I disagree with about everything you wrote. Women are welcome by most of us military folks to serve WHEREVER they can do the job competintly. This includes combat if they can do the job expected of them. The Air Force already has female combat pilots that do just as good a job as the males. I don't see the problem.
There is now way you will ever be able to send only single people overseas. A very large majority of the military's leadership is married. There is no way we can funtion without our ncos and officers and in the Air Force that comprises over half of our personel. If you allowed only the leadership to bring their spouses on the overseas tours that we all eventually go on, you would never keep any younger married troops in the military. I don't know if you keep up with military affairs but, we are experencing an extreme shortage of second term or career personel. The last thing we need is another reason for people to leave. Retraining them would far out weigh the cost associated with sending military members overseas with their families. The married personel that we do send overseas serve a longer tour that helps offset the cost of PCSing theie dependents. I don't mean to insult you if I have but, you touched a nerve. I have a bit of a problem with civilians calling the shots in the military when they are so obviously out of touch with the enlisted force and what we sacrifice so our country can remain free. I spend enough time and holidays away from my loved ones without being forced to go on overseas tours without them. Freezin1
There is now way you will ever be able to send only single people overseas. A very large majority of the military's leadership is married. There is no way we can funtion without our ncos and officers and in the Air Force that comprises over half of our personel. If you allowed only the leadership to bring their spouses on the overseas tours that we all eventually go on, you would never keep any younger married troops in the military. I don't know if you keep up with military affairs but, we are experencing an extreme shortage of second term or career personel. The last thing we need is another reason for people to leave. Retraining them would far out weigh the cost associated with sending military members overseas with their families. The married personel that we do send overseas serve a longer tour that helps offset the cost of PCSing theie dependents. I don't mean to insult you if I have but, you touched a nerve. I have a bit of a problem with civilians calling the shots in the military when they are so obviously out of touch with the enlisted force and what we sacrifice so our country can remain free. I spend enough time and holidays away from my loved ones without being forced to go on overseas tours without them. Freezin1
Gopher a 45
New member
Amen, Bob Locke! And where's Chester Nimitz when you need him?
[This message has been edited by Gopher a 45 (edited June 15, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Gopher a 45 (edited June 15, 2000).]
Send women into combat. The first enemy who hits one, you charge him with battery. Call a cop and they arrest the opposing forces and put them in jail. Their lawyer fees break them financially so their putzele country goes broke. We send aid. They build factories. We buy stuff from them and fire our own workers.
CRAP!
That's already been done. Scrap plan.
CRAP!
That's already been done. Scrap plan.