|
A-10
Feb 27, 2017 20:19:57 GMT
Post by quincannon on Feb 27, 2017 20:19:57 GMT
We do it from California Ian, and like Tom says Nevada and right down the road from me.
Combined arms starts in the mind. You had better be able to think it before you organize for it or attempt to do it.
Combined arms is nothing more that realizing that every part has a separate and distinct role to play, and it is better when these parts do it together within one overall chain if command, be it at platoon or theater force, so they compliment one another, then it is every done separately.
|
|
|
A-10
Feb 27, 2017 20:22:01 GMT
Post by deadwoodgultch on Feb 27, 2017 20:22:01 GMT
I stand corrected, maybe. I know the operators are bitching about rank!
|
|
|
A-10
Feb 27, 2017 20:27:58 GMT
Post by yanmacca on Feb 27, 2017 20:27:58 GMT
I must have the wrong idea of combined arms, but I suppose it depends on what area we are talking about. The Romans and even Napoleon had some sort of combined arms, but this is limited to the weapons of the period with Chariots and ballistas, down to cavalry and canon.
The Germans did similar with their Panzer divisions, but the way the US regimental combat teams led the way in some respects.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 27, 2017 20:46:23 GMT
The advent of a combined arms organization in the U S Army Ian was at the founding of the Republic with United States Legion composed of a couple of sub-legions. They were all arms organizations quickly dropped in favor of the more familiar branches of the Army, Armor, Infantry, Artillery etc.
They were very similar in structure to the regimental and brigade combat teams. Had we stayed on that track, I maintain half our problems we have today would not exist, and the Army would be much more like the Marine Corps.
You don't have the wrong idea about combined arms structure. It is one thing though to structure yourself for combined arms, and another completely different concept to think of combined arms as an operational and tactical concept. We structure for it, then largely give it lip service.
With true combined arms everyone one is a vital and equal player and partner. There are no red headed step children. Everyone is a star, everyone is billed equally on the marque. The gunner, the airman, the sailor, the wrench turner are just as important to the overall effort as the rifleman. The rifleman is the point of the spear, but he cannot get out of bed in the morning without the collective efforts of all the rest. That is combined arms.
ALSO PLEASE ALWAYS REMEMBER - Fire support like you would receive from a drone is one thing. CLOSE AND CONTINIOUS FIRE SUPPORT is another.
|
|
|
A-10
Sept 5, 2019 11:38:22 GMT
Post by deadwoodgultch on Sept 5, 2019 11:38:22 GMT
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
A-10
Sept 5, 2019 12:11:14 GMT
Post by dave on Sept 5, 2019 12:11:14 GMT
The A-10 is the modern day version of the A-1 Skyraider and just keeps hanging around, low and slow, over the battlefield. I know QC has been in favor of retiring the Warthog but the military seems intent of keeping them in service. The question is who is keeping these birds around? Congress, the Pentagon or some other power? Regards David
|
|
|
A-10
Sept 5, 2019 15:52:15 GMT
Post by quincannon on Sept 5, 2019 15:52:15 GMT
Yes I favor retiring the A10, but only when an adequate replacement is found.
Problem is that no one has ever found an adequate replacement for the A10, or the Skyraider or Corsair for that matter. All three of these aircraft would still be viable in any battle space you can name for close air support duties.
The Air Force has never liked dedicated ground support aircraft. They much prefer blue sky fighters that can perform a multitude of missions instead of an aircraft optimized for just one thing. You really can't blame them from a financial and resources point of view, but Congress, backed by the Army says they need that capability. So, says Congress, you either keep the A10 flying or turn them over to the Army.
|
|
|
A-10
Sept 7, 2019 18:30:41 GMT
Post by deadwoodgultch on Sept 7, 2019 18:30:41 GMT
This has nothing to do with my beloved A-10 but, since this is now an active thread, I have some trivia for Ian's website. Did you know that the 8th Army Air Force lost more men than our Marie Corps in WWII both casualties and deaths. If you can't find the numbers I will give them to you. Most of this flying from your island nation.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Sept 7, 2019 18:55:59 GMT
Tom, I get it to 47.000 in total, including around 26.000 KIA. One of the saddest moments concerning US service men in Britain, was the disaster at Slapton Sands during a D-Day rehearsal named ‘Exercise Tiger’. This disaster cost the lives of around 1000 US service men. I always mention the sacrifice given by the US military who came across the Atlantic and fought side by side with Britain and her allies to liberate Europe. I think that the bond between the British and US military is strong and will continue to be so and this dept made by the US military should be made clear to children in their history lessons too. The problem is that the kids whose great grand parents came here after the war, are either not aware of this fact or are not bothered and important things like this, get shunted out of the curriculum because it not their history.
But I remember;
|
|