The Military Thread

Six wings? Wow. Compensating much, are we? Yeah, I know, the French and the Russians both do the exact same thing but their planes look daft too.

Two programs actually, the F-X and KF-X. The F-X is the one the F-35 and the Typhoon are in the running for.

On another, unrelated note: The last surviving Navy doctor on Omaha Beach during the D-Day invasion passed away.

o7

This might be a silly question, but suppose a modern military decides to introduce alternative ranks to the general officer ranks that are basically combine the Colonel rank's field deployability with the general ranks' respective degrees of authority and prestige — i.e. "a general who works/operates more like a colonel with extra authority/prestige". What are the most probable Anglosphere names for such a rank? "Colonel General" is an already pre-existent above-General rank, so that's out.

Darn, I didn't know we had all those snazzy vehicles.

@Nohbody - Wait, is it possible to be a doctor in Navy at 24?

edited 5th Oct '12 7:26:53 AM by dRoy

^^ In addition to the more traditional major-colonel-generals thing? Sounds like an army that's going to wind up choking in brass, and have too many chiefs for not enough Indians (so to speak).

^ The US military of the WW 2 era was much less strict about things like requirements for going into certain branches, in part because of a need (both perceived and real) for a lot of people to deploy to fight.

Ah, I see.

This question might sound really stupid, but what kind of relationship does China and North Korea have?

China fronts for North Korea in the UN and has it's back when push comes to shove. There is some trade however the Norks are still a pariah so not much in terms of heavy industry. I suspect that's were most of the fuel has to come from.

@d_roy: even after WW 2, if a person has a valid medical license they can get a commission as an officer (direct to Captain (Army, Air Force,)/Lieutenant (Navy/Coast Guard) O-3). A declared war would open up some fields for a direct commission (say intel, programming, nuclear physics) but that would be at the discretion of each Armed Service.

edited 5th Oct '12 7:44:50 AM by TairaMai

Well, the idea is to accomodate cases were a Colonel Badass is legitimately more than qualified for promotion to a full 4-star general, but refuses to take it because his skills are better utilized on the frontline than from behind a desk (i.e. Four-Star Badass is not feasible). I conceive of them as special ranks that aren't that easy to get — that is, you better damn prove that you have exceptional skill ("a wide cut above your peers", so to speak) to justify special treatment.

That said... "major-colonel-general"? Does such a rank/term exist IRL?

edited 5th Oct '12 7:41:27 AM by MarqFJA

Foreign Armies have different ways and phrases for ranks. Once of the problems game companies and the Do D had with making an ORBAT for Desert Storm was that the Arabic words for units above battalion were similar.

IRL: In the US military, as much as an officer might not want a promotion, it's gonna happen unless they do something real bad. "Up or out", most ranks have caps on the number of years you can spend at that rank. If war were declared, Congress would have to give the okay (since they are the ones who approve promotions above major, no really). Your Colonel Badass will get dragged kicking and screaming upstairs or given the option to retire.

edited 5th Oct '12 7:53:40 AM by TairaMai

Right. So what exactly stops modern general officers from leading their troops from the front lines rather than from the safety of a command center deep within friendly territory?

Probably the ability to receive information from all quarters of the Battlefield, and space to put that information to use. These days, command of a major operation needs a lot of people.

So all those cases of a fictional Four-Star Badass spending a lot more time leading his brigade/regiment on the frontlines or piloting an Ace Custom Cool Tank / Cool Plane / Giant Robot in battle after battle than focusing on theater-strategizing in the war room are completely unrealistic/implausible/impossible, huh?

That's the whole point of all the commo gear modern militaries carry around. If some Four-Star Badass is that good in the cockpit, she's gonna be in the schoolhouse teaching young officers rather than wasting all that experience getting her shot at.

It cost almost a million $US to train me at my job as a radar tech. From basic training (firing live round, my time at the beauty salon, food) to AIT (tech school, where I got to play with a real radar) almost $900,000. For a pilot it's over $2 mil. Then you have all that experience in leadership and tactics that money can't buy.

For ground troops, a general might see combat, but only if the sh_t hits the fan. In the Navy of course all bets are off, because missiles make all ships targets.

edited 5th Oct '12 9:22:16 AM by TairaMai

If a Lieutenant Colonel or above is ever in combat, someone really fucked up and is either dead or getting a demotion.

By "major-colonel-generals" I meant the rank structure. Imagine those "-" replaced by "->" if it makes it more clear.

I'm going to be trying to join the Royal Navy Reserve, post haste.

I can't see it. The reason the rank is call Major General is that it was formerly Sergeant Major General. Officers dropped the enlisted title and kept the rest. Funky ranks general come into English when talking about another nation's military. Usually the Do D goofs the translation.

edited 5th Oct '12 9:29:55 AM by TairaMai

He meant "major —> colonel —> general".

Sorry, bout that. However that comment about too many bosses brings up another topic: Brass Creep. Don't know about NATO, but the US was promoting generals/admirals at a fast clip. Now they are being forced out. Promotion rates are dropping due to units being cut.

@Marq FJA, your avatar is soooo cute! I wanna hug her!

edited 5th Oct '12 9:34:31 AM by TairaMai

That's not being rational. That's being impulsive. And their legitimacy is being questioned because of the rising economic problems and social inequality, which would get even worse if one of the biggest source of investment (Japan) is "attacked". So how is that proof of a rational actor?

The other problems the Chinese gov't are tackling are "internal". Imagine the Tea Party separating into several factions...that won't look good. For another king of "internal", there's the Uighurs and the Tibetans.

edited 5th Oct '12 10:55:30 AM by entropy13

Agreed with Barkey's sentiment: If your Batallion CO is having to discharge their personal sidearm at Threat Forces, you are doing it wrong. I'd expect that out of a Company CO and Platoon Leader at most. The higher up the organization you get, the further from the actual front lines you should be, lest a lucky artillery round decapitates your entire headquarters by killing your top brass, the brass's assistants and all the staff pukes, thus depriving your subordinate commands from effective leadership and coordination. That merely makes it easier for Threat Forces to defeat you in detail, or to disengage from your now-uncoordinated subordinate units, or whatever floats their boat.

You want to do that to the other guy; do not give the other guy the opportunity to do that to you. We did this to great effect in the Gulf Wars, if I remember correctly.

edited 5th Oct '12 12:38:59 PM by pvtnum11

Okay, so Commander CO and a Plattoon leader is the highest rank that is still on the frontline?

Well, a Platoon Leader definitely. A CO is likely on the ground with his troops, so he can coordinate his PL's effectively, although I suspect that neither the PL or CO will be actively discharging their sidearms at the enemy - they'll likely be too busy receiving reports, coordination movements and jabbering with the RATELO with the higher ups. The only time I can see them having to fight is if their on the defensive and it's going really badly.

...so again, if your leadership is acting like a rifleman, you're doing it wrong, in theory. Your head is no longer in the business of leading, it is all concerned about survival now.

@entropy: because the Chinese and the Japanese have had spats before, and because they're confident of their ability to limit escalation. Any specific incident might overstrain it, of course, but right now the Chinese are looking at the facts, which are these: Japanese businesses aren't pulling out of China. The big Japanese car, electronics, heavy industrial, you-name-it, all those groups aren't going anywhere. If the Japanese start making rumbles about them getting out, then, yes, expect the Chinese to change their game plan. It would be terrible for the CCP if Japan actually pulled out—but since Japan isn't and shows no signs of doing so, the occasional wave of hyperpatriotism is a good way to gain legitimacy. It helps that, for all the noise, the protests are surface-level only and dying out. As long as the Chinese perceive that they can stay on the highwire, and that they could keep their course of action without risking a serious escalation, that's just what they'll do.

Of course, history is full of lessons on what happens when a country tries and fails to control escalation. Maybe the populist anti-Japanese tide (and I don't need to remind anyone just how much the Chinese population in general dislikes Japan) will drag them into further actions; maybe that damn Tokyo governor's rhetoric will ramp up; maybe some idiots will land on the island and start a fistfight. But China is banking on the fact that is has a lot of economic leverage over Japan to push things through via negotiations; the nationalist protests are a sideshow.