"Airmen Fill the Gaps in Wartime"

[Bone_Vulture]

An article by Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20051011/ts_latimes/airmenfillthegapsinwartime)

WASHINGTON — Straining to find ground troops to maintain its force levels in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon has begun deploying thousands of Air Force personnel to combat zones in new jobs as interrogators, prison sentries and gunners on supply trucks.

The Air Force years ago banked its future on state-of-the-art fighter jets and billion-dollar satellites. Yet the service that has long avoided being pulled into ground operations is now finding that its people — rather than its weapons — are what the Pentagon needs most as it wages a prolonged war against a low-tech, insurgent enemy.

Next up: Volksturm.

[s_qwert63]

Where was the article about how American armour troops had to patrol the streets on foot with AK-47's, because they were short of both men and weapons?

[StandingCow]

This hasn't just started happening either. Alot of my friends went over as drivers, gunners, security...

[Stig]

Hrm... this makes things interesting.

[kreket]

I assume there is a basic level of training for all the branches, with a bare minimum of physical fitness, gun ranges and first aid? Before being retrained for army services and so on. This forum might be the right place to ask about that.

This isn't heartening. Good thing it's the 'backwater jobs', but even that entails a risk. In other news, NATO is sending 2 000 soldiers to Afghanistan to replace mass desertion, using up potential reinforcements. Turned out some people had loyalty issues about going against their own warlord. Could be fear of retribution or just joining up to get pay and training, too.

[StandingCow]

With the exception of AF Security Forces... we are NOT adequately trained in the AF to be doing any sort of infantry stuff...

In basic we spend ONE day shooting the M16.. and its not even a full day.. we fire 80 shots, 40 practice, then 40 qualify. Then we don't touch the M16 again for a year or more (depending on extra dutys such as an augmentee)....

And you know they are't going to train the people anymore, they are just going to throw them in a spot and say learn....

[Lord Kelvin]

Well, the problem is that Airmen are trained more for stuff other than sentry duty or slinging guns. Not to mention...

/me points to Eric Cartman thread in the OTF.

[StandingCow]

Well, the problem is that Airmen are trained more for stuff other than sentry duty or slinging guns. Not to mention...

/me points to Eric Cartman thread in the OTF.

lol... that was a low shot.

Correct, we are not trained for that, but you know what, if people start playing the "I'm not trained for that, Im not doing it".. they are going to start training us for it.

I seriously think the AirForce does not need to exist as a seperate entity... but very glad it does, because I would no want to be in the army.... well maybe I have just proven myself wrong.... maybe its good its seperate so people join!

[Lord Kelvin]

Well, even so, the Air Force still provides invaluable support for the ground-pounders in Iraq; an article I read about the Fallujah assault said that the Army guys coordinated with the Air force guys to direct their bombs very precisely into enemy positions that the Abramses in the street couldn't otherwise reach with their cannons because of the odd angles and such.

[kreket]

I'd like to make clear that I do see the issues with using manpower in front line duties they are barely trained for. I had no idea it was on this scale.

[Bone_Vulture]

I'd like to make clear that I do see the issues with using manpower in front line duties they are barely trained for. I had no idea it was on this scale.

Yeah, one would think that the world's (supposedly) most potent army wouldn't have to rely on Luftwaffe for ground forces' manpower needs.

[s_qwert63]

What happened to the 1.5 million men US Army, there are only 150, 000 or so in Iraq, why do they need Airforce personnel if they can fill the gaps with infantry from Germany or South Korea?

[Lord Kelvin]

1. There's no draft anymore
2. They're likely needed where they are

[s_qwert63]

1. There's no draft anymore
2. They're likely needed where they are


Well even if there is no draft, the standing manpower of the US Military is over 1 million strong. Of course I understand the problems of logistics and such, but why not pull out a reginment out of South Korea rather than sending airmen to fight?
You could probably replace the reginment with a reginment of Airmen, I'm sure they won;t need to do much fighting in Korea.

[Ch33zy]

Thatt one million your touting probably includes the airmen/support services.

[Medlar]

You could probably replace the reginment with a reginment of Airmen, I'm sure they won;t need to do much fighting in Korea.

You're extremely intelligent and should be a politician.

[StandingCow]

I'm not saying the AirForce wouldn't be perfect for support operations.. as I said before my friends drove vehicals... etc...

They just cannot start using us as another section of the army.

[GoatChomper]

Where was the article about how American armour troops had to patrol the streets on foot with AK-47's, because they were short of both men and weapons?
It's not a case of lacking equipment, but one of a foot patrol being a much better option than having a tank patrolling through an urban area. That's what's being done with a lot of artillery units right now, as they're not needed to man the pieces.
Yeah, one would think that the world's (supposedly) most potent army wouldn't have to rely on Luftwaffe for ground forces' manpower needs.
One would think that even a reserve anti-aircraft gunner could see the value of the experience the troops gain from this, but one could always be mistaken.
Of course I understand the problems of logistics and such, but why not pull out a reginment out of South Korea rather than sending airmen to fight?
Because the total US Army force in Korea actually amounts to little more than a beefed-up division.....one regiment-sized unit would comprise nearly a fifth of the 2nd ID's force structure.
You could probably replace the reginment with a reginment of Airmen, I'm sure they won;t need to do much fighting in Korea.
Unless the Inmun Gun decides that's the propitious time to attempt a forced reunification again.

[Bone_Vulture]

One would think that even a reserve anti-aircraft gunner could see the value of the experience the troops gain from this, but one could always be mistaken.

Yeah, "on-the-job training", as I've heard this practice of sending 3rd line troops to combat being called. :rolleyes:

[StandingCow]

Kinda relaited.. my friend in the Army Reserves... was HVAC.. well they changed his MOS to Combat Engineer and he is now over in Afganistan diffusing bombs...

[-V-]

Actually someone brought up a good point of pulling troops from say Germany (After all we don't have to worry about a Soviet 'zerg rush' seeing as that country doesnt exist any more) and send them to bolster numbers in Iraq.

[Redoubts]

Goat, I believe you forgot to mention the possibility of pulling men from Germany.

[GoatChomper]

Yeah, "on-the-job training", as I've heard this practice of sending 3rd line troops to combat being called. :rolleyes:
Prepare for science drop.....

Even first-stringers aren't born fully effective, they get there with experience.....and experience is a far better teacher than training. If you have troops and commanders that haven't fought an exterior opponent since.....say, 1941.....then don't expect them to be terribly capable or even cognizant of just how far down the totem pole they are.
Goat, I believe you forgot to mention the possibility of pulling men from Germany.
No, not at all.....V Corps troops were some of the first ones rotated through the Middle East. The difference is that Korea looks to be a far greater likelyhood for the next shooting match than Eastern Europe.

[Bone_Vulture]

Prepare for science drop.....

Even first-stringers aren't born fully effective, they get there with experience.....and experience is a far better teacher than training.

Then why bother giving any training at all? Why not just drop the recruits fresh off the train (figure of speech) in the middle of combat?

If you have troops and commanders that haven't fought an exterior opponent since.....say, 1941.....then don't expect them to be terribly capable or even cognizant of just how far down the totem pole they are.

Following your logic, should a country instead of just preparing for, start wars to secure peace? No wait... forget I asked.

And if that was some cheap shot towards Finland's military history, let me remind you that the Continuation War ended in September of 1944. :rolleyes: Since then, the Finnish national defense doctrine has relied on a vast manpower pool, (created by) mandatory military service for men, and annual combat rehearsals for key reserve units.

[GoatChomper]

Then why bother giving any training at all?
Because experience shows that trying to season troops without training them first wins you nothing but a mob all wearing the same clothes that will break and demoralize without accomplishing a thing.
And if that was some cheap shot towards Finland's military history, let me remind you that the Continuation War ended in September of 1944.
Then that means your frame of reference is structured around a defense establishment that hasn't had to fight a battle in sixty-one years instead of the sixty-five I had thought.

I stand corrected, as if it mattered.

[nyarlathotep]

I got to play garbageman and almost got to play gate guard.

I don't remember that in the description for 1C1...maybe I didn't argue hard enough.

[Bone_Vulture]

Because experience shows that trying to season troops without training them first wins you nothing but a mob all wearing the same clothes that will break and demoralize without accomplishing a thing.

Then do you believe that the Air Force fieldmen are adequately trained or motivated for frontline duty?

Then that means your frame of reference is structured around a defense establishment that hasn't had to fight a battle in sixty-one years instead of the sixty-five I had thought.

I stand corrected, as if it mattered.

And Americans haven't fought on their own continent for what, two centuries? I'd be willing to claim that the Finns have far more recent experience on defending their own land. Besides, we haven't been actively starting wars any time during Finland's history - our military's purpose is to act as a strategic repellant, a force formidable enough to make any invasion plans appear too bloody to commit to.

[SWATJester_os]

Ugh.....you guys are making WAY too much of this.

[Bone_Vulture]

Ugh.....you guys are making WAY too much of this.

In what way?

[SWATJester_os]

Well a, it's been like this for years. B, the article isn't exactly accurate on what most of those troops are doing over there.

[Lord Kelvin]

our military's purpose is to act as a strategic repellant, a force formidable enough to make any invasion plans appear too bloody to commit to.
The problem is that attacks aren't always carried out by armies, or air forces, or navies. Not to mention, if you have all sorts of potential enemies (whether they're created by your policy or that of someone else) you'd much rather take the fight to them instead of having a fight on your own land. A more sound strategy than making the other guy lose more than you.

[Bone_Vulture]

The problem is that attacks aren't always carried out by armies, or air forces, or navies. Not to mention, if you have all sorts of potential enemies (whether they're created by your policy or that of someone else) you'd much rather take the fight to them instead of having a fight on your own land. A more sound strategy than making the other guy lose more than you.

I wasn't implying that one military doctrine is better than the other, I was merely pointing out how vastly these doctrines differ between US and Finland, after Goat tried to make a show out of it. And if Í didn't underline it clearly enough to begin with, the Finnish doctrine relies on the mentioned paradox: we're securing peace by maintaing a defense force plausible enough to discourage anyone from attacking us.

[Lord Kelvin]

Well, I'm not making that point either, but we learned the hard way (not underlying anything here, just saying) that you don't have to have an invading army to cause damage. At least if your goal isn't to invade.

[GoatChomper]

Then do you believe that the Air Force fieldmen are adequately trained or motivated for frontline duty?
Do you beleive they aren't, and what are your credentials?
And Americans haven't fought on their own continent for what, two centuries? I'd be willing to claim that the Finns have far more recent experience on defending their own land.
Uhm, let's not bother mentioning 1812 as that's close enough.....but instead, try looking up what happened here from 1861 to 1865.

So now you've moved the goalposts to claim that only experience fighting on one's own territory is beneficial.

Pretty tight corner you've painted yourself into there.

[Bone_Vulture]

Do you beleive they aren't, and what are your credentials?

Judging from what I've read, their level of training appears to be in stark contrast with that of an average American army soldier trained for frontline duty.

but instead, try looking up what happened here from 1861 to 1865.

American civil war? What the hell are you smoking - how's that an example of a fighting a foreign invader on your own land?

So now you've moved the goalposts to claim that only experience fighting on one's own territory is beneficial.

Pretty tight corner you've painted yourself into there.

No, all I said that Finland has more recent experience on defensive warfare than America. You've simply been drawing your semi-coherent conclusions again; let me add in an emoticon to throw you further off. :rolleyes:

[Lord Kelvin]

American civil war? What the hell are you smoking - how's that an example of a fighting a foreign invader on your own land?

Uh, I think you said something about "experience defending their own land". The Confederates attacked onto Union soil dozens of times. Now I know that the point of those attacks wasn't to conquer territory, but even so, I believe it qualifies as defending your own land.

[Bone_Vulture]

Uh, I think you said something about "experience defending their own land". The Confederates attacked onto Union soil dozens of times. Now I know that the point of those attacks wasn't to conquer territory, but even so, I believe it qualifies as defending your own land.

Did I not mention the "foreign invader" many times enough? :rolleyes:

And if Goat really wants to call civil war a form of defensive warfare.. we Finns have more recent experience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Civil_War) on that as well! :p

[Medlar]

Yeah but see, nobody really cares about Finland.

[Stalin]

Judging from what I've read, their level of training appears to be in stark contrast with that of an average American army soldier trained for frontline duty.



Where in the article did it say anything about the airmen doing foot patrols, raids, or assaults? They're not infantry; they're pogues, and filling in pogue jobs.

[Bone_Vulture]

Yeah but see, nobody really cares about Finland.

Then don't take any part to the debate. :rolleyes:

[GoatChomper]

Did I not mention the "foreign invader" many times enough?
Which is the location to which you'd like to have the goalpost sited, but we're ignoring your wishes. You'd do better to concede by silence in admitting that your armed forces currently lack any experience in fighting anybody.

[Bone_Vulture]

Which is the location to which you'd like to have the goalpost sited, but we're ignoring your wishes.

I haven't moved any goalposts anywhere. If you wish to believe that a nation fighting itself is the same thing as fighting another nation, feel free to do so.

You'd do better to concede by silence in admitting that your armed forces currently lack any experience in fighting anybody.

And upon what do you base this brash claim? :rolleyes:

If you're saying that we haven't been involved in wars for sixty years, that is correct. If you're insinuating that the Finnish military is incapable of warfare, that is incorrect.

[solidsnake]

This is why my brother is being a pussy and not joining the Air Force.

[GoatChomper]

I haven't moved any goalposts anywhere.
Actually, yes.....you were the one who tried to invalidate it by bringing up the irrelevant point about foreign versus internal opponents.
If you wish to believe that a nation fighting itself is the same thing as fighting another nation, feel free to do so.
Oh, so the experience the troops garner at being under the hammer is somehow "different" bewtween the two? Feel free to eolaborate on just how it's "different".
And upon what do you base this brash claim?
As there is not one soldier or commander still operating in your defense structure who has any war experience at all, this is patent. If you would have anybody beleive that the performance of six decades ago is proof of contemporary effectiveness, you are hilariously wasting your time.

[Bone_Vulture]

Actually, yes.....you were the one who tried to invalidate it by bringing up the irrelevant point about foreign versus internal opponents.

My point is irrelevant simply because you believe it is?

Oh, so the experience the troops garner at being under the hammer is somehow "different" bewtween the two? Feel free to eolaborate on just how it's "different".

That's like asking "how is stabbing myself with a knife any different from being stabbed by someone else"? If you truly wish me to start listing all the differences, then fine, I'll list some:

"Normal" war vs. civil war

The enemy comes from outside the borders vs. from the inside
The conflict tends to lead to unification of the nation's people vs. division
The enemy likely has their own unique training and doctrines vs. doesn't likely

I agree that any kind of conflict yeilds the combatants experience on a very low tactical level; but not as a lesson to be taken advantage on the level of grand strategy.

As there is not one soldier or commander still operating in your defense structure who has any war experience at all, this is patent. If you would have anybody beleive that the performance of six decades ago is proof of contemporary effectiveness, you are hilariously wasting your time.

The fact that there has not been any conflicts during the last six decades is in my opinion proof enough of our diplomatic prowess and plausible defensive capability. Or need I remind you of what happened to the rest of the Eastern Europe after WW2 again? :rolleyes:

[SWATJester_os]

My lack of dying in the past 22 years is in my opinion proof enough of my own immortality and deity status.

Can we say logical fallacy?

[Bone_Vulture]

My lack of dying in the past 22 years is in my opinion proof enough of my own immortality and deity status.

Can we say logical fallacy?

Assuming that everyone in your proximity has dropped dead right after birth, I'd say that's entirely logical.

After WW2, Soviet Union manhandled countries like Hungary and Romania for decades. On the other hand, Molotov, the Soviet minister of foreign relations, reportedly stated that Soviet Union was fortunate not trying to occupy Finland, as the combination of sparse population density and stubborn natives would've lead to long-winded guerilla warfare.

[GrosPoisson]

our diplomatic prowess

Juho Paasikivi, right? Interesting guy.

[Bone_Vulture]

Juho Paasikivi, right? Interesting guy.

Indeed. Perhaps even a more important figure was his successor, Urho Kekkonen, who's presidency lasted for some 25 years - mostly because no other person was willing to volunteer for the diplomatic dance with the then menacing Red Bear.

[SOCOM-DELTA]

Then do you believe that the Air Force fieldmen are adequately trained or motivated for frontline duty?



And Americans haven't fought on their own continent for what, two centuries? I'd be willing to claim that the Finns have far more recent experience on defending their own land. Besides, we haven't been actively starting wars any time during Finland's history - our military's purpose is to act as a strategic repellant, a force formidable enough to make any invasion plans appear too bloody to commit to.


first off, I will say this:

as a former airman, NO, airmen are well-prepared to go to combat. they are receiving similar traiing programs to that of the army (a year ago, shortly before I was discharged -- another story -- some of the airmen in my unit were being trained by army personnel on convoy defense). additionally, tenets taught in air force basic military training (granted, that in itself is something of a joke) are nonetheless being reinforced by further retraining, and even THEN all airmen are requalified annually (if not more often) to, well, make sure they know what they know.

frankly i think a force that is constantly training to the same standards as their comrades in other services are well-equipped. the only thing that is different between the air force and the army is that the USAF is more relaxed because, until now, airmen hardly saw REAL combat duties -- just the same job they did back home, only when deployed they stand the possibility of getting shot at.

contrary to popular belief, the air force trains its troops well and does not send them off unprepared. this is why I have fondly thought of the USAF as the professional force.

and yes, kudos to the finnish defense force (serious statement; no sarcasm intended), actually, for the admirable job done in repelling the Red Army ca. 1941, for it is a feat that few other european states were able to pull off.

[Bone_Vulture]

Glad to hear that, SOCOM. As long as the troops have received proper training beforehand, I can understand taking manpower from other branches of the military.

and yes, kudos to the finnish defense force (serious statement; no sarcasm intended), actually, for the admirable job done in repelling the Red Army ca. 1941, for it is a feat that few other european states were able to pull off.

Thank you. :o

[SOCOM-DELTA]

i would have edited this, but i felt it deserved a separate post.

my first sentence above: i mean to say NO airman is prepared for combat UNTIL they have received the training I described. that is, air force basic training is a joke and needs to be supplemented with further training, which of course it is.

to any current airmen: if you can support or refute my claims, please!

i must, however, concur with some of the other fellas: the Finnish military does not have any recent military experience. Training is just the foundation for experience, which is then the foundation of a sound military force.

[GoatChomper]

My point is irrelevant simply because you believe it is?
It's irrelevant because experience being under fire is not "different" depending on who's shooting at you.
The fact that there has not been any conflicts during the last six decades is in my opinion proof enough of our diplomatic prowess and plausible defensive capability.
That plausible is not a proven.....you are still falsely maintaining that a success six decades ago is a guarantee of current competency, not to mention mistaking non-engagement for for deterrence.

[Bone_Vulture]

It's irrelevant because experience being under fire is not "different" depending on who's shooting at you.

Like I already said, it depends on what kind of experience are you talking about. For a rifleman, experience is what comes with staying alive through bouts of combat. This experience is always handy in the future, whoever you're up against next. For a general though, the experience is likely handy only if another civil war breaks out - that is, unless a ulterior hostile force starts a war in exactly the same conditions as a civil war, which is quite unlikely.

That plausible is not a proven.....you are still falsely maintaining that a success six decades ago is a guarantee of current competency, not to mention mistaking non-engagement for for deterrence.

Such is the paradox of war. Does sixty years of peace prove that we Finns were crafty with both the pen and the sword.. or does it mean that the Soviet Union just kinda forgot about Finland (a western neighbor with an insanely long land border) in a weird way while spreading communism to every other corner of the world?

[StandingCow]

i would have edited this, but i felt it deserved a separate post.

my first sentence above: i mean to say NO airman is prepared for combat UNTIL they have received the training I described. that is, air force basic training is a joke and needs to be supplemented with further training, which of course it is.

to any current airmen: if you can support or refute my claims, please!

i must, however, concur with some of the other fellas: the Finnish military does not have any recent military experience. Training is just the foundation for experience, which is then the foundation of a sound military force.

I agree with the exception of the obvious fields that ARE totally combat ready and see alot of action (pararescue for one). But yes, the AF does train you before it sends you off.

[GoatChomper]

Like I already said, it depends on what kind of experience are you talking about. For a rifleman, experience is what comes with staying alive through bouts of combat. This experience is always handy in the future, whoever you're up against next. For a general though, the experience is likely handy only if another civil war breaks out.....
Wrong.....the commander will have to use the very same C3I and logistics resources he has in both civil or foreign conflicts, he will have to deal with the same METT-T elements in both civil and foreign conflicts, and he will still be hampered by the same uncontrollable factors such as weather.

[SWATJester_os]

Not to mention logistics.

-edit- dammit...goat said those.

[-V-]

Just curios, but in what rescent conflict (refering to past 30 or so years) has weather played a significant role for either side?


I think though Bone's point still stands. While you pick over little details like general-ship, logistics, and whatnot, the fact stands that Finland managed not to be absored into the Warsaw-pact for a good 50-or so years. This is even under the time of Stalin and Kruschev, who propably didn't think twice about sending forces to Budapest or Prague, or having a couple of divisions camp out next to the capital of Romania.

[SWATJester_os]

OIF, the sandstorm of the century grounded the entire 101st's advance and stopped all ground forces from advancing for a full day. OEF, bad weather often significantly delayed attacks against enemy forces, or rescue operations (such as in Anaconda)

[GoatChomper]

Just curios, but in what rescent conflict (refering to past 30 or so years) has weather played a significant role for either side?
Another example.....the ultimatum to withdraw from Kuwait and the kickoff to the air-control phase of Gulf War One were timed to coincide with the moon's phase, a critical factor to consider when you'd like to keep your sortie-loss to enemy AAA ands air assets to a minimum.
I think though Bone's point still stands. While you pick over little details like general-ship, logistics, and whatnot, the fact stands that Finland managed not to be absored into the Warsaw-pact for a good 50-or so years.
As the Soviets didn't try to absorb them by force of arms as they did in the areas of eastern Europe they shot their way into in the mid-Forties, that's a big Maybe.
This is even under the time of Stalin and Kruschev, who propably didn't think twice about sending forces to Budapest or Prague.....
They didn't have to send any to break a trail, they were already there.

[Bone_Vulture]

Wrong.....the commander will have to use the very same C3I and logistics resources he has in both civil or foreign conflicts, he will have to deal with the same METT-T elements in both civil and foreign conflicts, and he will still be hampered by the same uncontrollable factors such as weather.

In civil war, you're lucky to have a fraction of the manpower and logistical resources that you'd have against a foreign opponent, and every "enemy" that you shoot is also one soldier less that'd defend the country against foreign invaders.

[marty]

In civil war, you're lucky to have a fraction of the manpower and logistical resources that you'd have against a foreign opponent, and every "enemy" that you shoot is also one soldier less that'd defend the country against foreign invaders.
I suggest that you study the US civil war...

[Bone_Vulture]

I suggest that you study the US civil war...

NO U.

Goat posted his initial reply on the first page, and from thereon this thread has become increasingly more ludicrous. Thanks to SOCOM for clarifying the facts behind the actual topic, though.

[GoatChomper]

In civil war, you're lucky to have a fraction of the manpower and logistical resources that you'd have against a foreign opponent.....
Nonsense.....if anything the logistic factor is better, not having such long lines of communication.

And as marty pointed out, experience has shown that in a civil conflict you'll have an even greater percentage of your population under arms.....that's another reason our own civil war produced the highest casualty rates we've had.
.....and every "enemy" that you shoot is also one soldier less that'd defend the country against foreign invaders.
Which is an issue for the next war the command structure has to deal with, not the current crisis.

[Bone_Vulture]

Nonsense.....if anything the logistic factor is better, not having such long lines of communication.

Oh, as opposed to defending the country's actual border? I highly doubt that each side of a civil war could split a country in such a way that no logistical elements would be severed by the frontlines.

And as marty pointed out, experience has shown that in a civil conflict you'll have an even greater percentage of your population under arms.....that's another reason our own civil war produced the highest casualty rates we've had.

I have not made any claims about casualties.

Which is an issue for the next war the command structure has to deal with, not the current crisis.

I was not seeking a causality or correlation, but pointing out a difference between the two types of warfare.

[marty]

Oh, as opposed to defending the country's actual border? I highly doubt that each side of a civil war could split a country in such a way that no logistical elements would be severed by the frontlines.You REALLY need to study the US Civil war. You're just embarassing yourself

[Bone_Vulture]

You REALLY need to study the US Civil war. You're just embarassing yourself

And what you REALLY need to do is to actually quote something informative, instead of just being content that your argument is based on some vague historical event.

[StandingCow]

This has really gone off topic... back to talking about us poor airmen having to cover for the army!

[marty]

And what you REALLY need to do is to actually quote something informative, instead of just being content that your argument is based on some vague historical event.
Let me put it this way... The US Civil war involved 2 seperately recognized nations with contigous territory. The North (United States of America), and the South (Confederate States of America).

The two nations had a clearly defined border and two distinctly seperate standing military forces. Both sides invaded each other's borders (actual invasions, not just raids) during the course of the war.

You know, it was kind of like a "real" war...

This was not one of those African civil wars you see on CNN that is basically a guerilla war between irregular forces (though the US Civil war also involved those, too)

[Bone_Vulture]

Thank you Marty, for the valid argument.

I admit that I didn't take into the equasion the way the states of America had already formed pre-civil war. I'll agree that maintaining former logistical elements under those conditions is possible.

[SOCOM-DELTA]

but even then it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain the logistical ties that once supported the greater nation as a whole.

clear example:

the confederate states of america, the 'south', did not have access to as many industrial centers as the north did, and therefore could not manufacture as many important munitions & supplies (ammunition, rifles, even clothing like shoes & basic uniforms!). ultimately this contributed to the downfall of the confederacy, but that's another topic.

and on the question of weather affecting the outcome of battles:

think about Heinz Guderian's ill-fated Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the Soviet Union. there were several key weather-related factors that spelled Doom for the Germany Army from day one:

1) the autumn rains. turned the countryside into 'oceans of mud', making movement of heavy armored forces (the backbone of the German Army) almost impossible

2) the freezing Russian winter. Der Wehrmacht just was not suited for a winter war, like Napoleon's Army before them. their tanks froze up, their men froze to death during the bitter, cold Soviet winter. the Soviets, on the other hand, brought tanks that were designed to function in the freezing temperatures AND their men were properly equipped for cold weather.

3) a minor sidenote: this may or may not have been a significant factor. gas attacks along the frontlines during WWI. if the wind suddenly shifted direction, one's own gas attack could literally backfire and end up killing your own troops.

[SOCOM-DELTA]

anyways... in response to the original topic, I still think it's a bad idea to fill these positions with airmen.

they bring an entirely different attitude to the table. some are level-headed and ready to accept the serious responsibility they are faced with, most especially those that volunteer for this duty.

some are still in the same mindset they brought with them from basic training; that is, they may not be taking their position in the military so seriously. this is just how the air force has evolved, whereas the army recruit will take his job quite seriously from the moment he graduates from boot camp.

[GoatChomper]

Oh, as opposed to defending the country's actual border?
You are forgetting something, namely that in a civil war maintaining the pre-war external boundaries are not the mission at hand.
I highly doubt that each side of a civil war could split a country in such a way that no logistical elements would be severed by the frontlines.
Non-sequitur.....that has nothing to do with how long one's internal lines of communication are.
I have not made any claims about casualties.
And a good thing, because you keep trying to introduce an extraneous factor of external aggression.
I was not seeking a causality or correlation, but pointing out a difference between the two types of warfare.
And I will point out yet again that the same factors under which both the individual soldier and the commander must operate are the same whether it is a civil war or war versus a foreign opponent.

[Skyler]

Going back to the U.S. not fighting a foreign enemy on it's own soil in 200years... If you want to get technical we fought the Japanese on the Aleutian Islands in 1942-1943.

[Bone_Vulture]

You are forgetting something, namely that in a civil war maintaining the pre-war external boundaries are not the mission at hand.

Every country with a formidable army has defense plan against an ulterior force. The locations of supply depots, garrisons, training camps and major traffic arteries are usually chosen in a way that reflects this plan. When a country is driven into a civil war, central areas of the country that have been seen positioned well behind the front lines in an event of an invasion, might suddenly become the primary battlefield. This will likely lead to major disruptions in the country's agricultural and industrial production.

Non-sequitur.....that has nothing to do with how long one's internal lines of communication are.

Let's clarify something - by "lines of communication", do you mean just the flow of information, or also the actual flow of supplies to the front?

And a good thing, because you keep trying to introduce an extraneous factor of external aggression.

I'm not "introducing" anything, my point has been to make a comparison, since the beginning of your silly introduction of civil war as grounds for an argument.

And I will point out yet again that the same factors under which both the individual soldier and the commander must operate are the same whether it is a civil war or war versus a foreign opponent.

And I've said and say again that the factors are not the same. Hope you've brought plenty of tickets for the merry-go-round. :rolleyes:

[GrosPoisson]

Going back to the U.S. not fighting a foreign enemy on it's own soil in 200years... If you want to get technical we fought the Japanese on the Aleutian Islands in 1942-1943.

Ah, good call, I completely forgot about that.

[SOCOM-DELTA]

as far as details on that engagement go, the battleground was Adak Island in the Aleutians.

essentially, a single Japanese regiment was sacrificed as a diversionary force, a feignt to draw attention from the impending battle at Midway. I believe as much as 5,000 Japanese lost their lives; in the end only about 600 remained, and they all committed suicide rather than surrender. upwards of 2,000 GIs lost their lives. the battle had no real effect on the outcome of Midway.

-edit-

i'm not sure of the actual number of troops lost, or troops that participated in the engagement. the number of Japanese that committed suicide is approximate; I believe it was actually slightly more (morbid :/ )

but I am certain that this battle was terribly bloody for both sides, and not the somewhat-lopsided victory that usually came with american ww2 victories; that is, the total number of american troops lost was, i think, only one for every two japanese killed, if that.

[GoatChomper]

Every country with a formidable army has defense plan against an ulterior force......
You still don't seem to get the basic fact that if you lose the immediate, right-at-hand civil war then you won't have to worry about a foreign aggressor.
Let's clarify something - by "lines of communication", do you mean just the flow of information, or also the actual flow of supplies to the front?
"Lines of communication" refer to the latter.
I'm not "introducing" anything.....
You've already forgotten that it was you who brought it up.
And I've said and say again that the factors are not the same.
Alright, then.....let's hear how they're different.

Will the commander have to use completely different C3I systems? No. Will he have to use an entirely different set of weapons? No. Will he have to use different methods of moving supplies to his subunits? No. Will the weather change depending on whether it's a native or foreign opponent facing him? No.

Will the ground be more difficult to dig into depending on having a native or foreign opponent? No. Will the distances needed to be patrolled be somehow shorter if it's anative opponent? No. Will the troops need less in the way of ammunition, food, and fuel if it's a native opponent? No.

So far, the one and only difference you've posted is a myth about foreign invasion bringing about national unification. If you think that is a certainty, then you are woefully ignorant of history. Notice that Mexico damn sure didn't unite any of the three times the USA invaded it, one of those being right in the middle of a civil war.....that's hardly unique to the USA, as the French invasion in 1864 didn't result in a spasm of Mexican unity either. You are confusing the political and military spheres.....the commander and troops have nothing to do with the creation of policy.

I could continue endlessly, but I eschew redundancy. In short, none of the mission obstacles the commander and his troops will face will change depending on whether they have a native or foreign opponent.