tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-446331158288124266.post7729738339329711176..comments2023-05-03T07:26:00.430-07:00Comments on The Visiting Artilleryman: PurpleRedleghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01534394987193749869noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-446331158288124266.post-37155015833317669812010-03-23T05:57:04.381-07:002010-03-23T05:57:04.381-07:00No problem. When you look at it the only two serv...No problem. When you look at it the only two services that really need "common" big ticket items (artillery, tanks and so on) are the Marines and the Army. And thanks to the budget cuts in the 90's, they both realized that by pooling money, materials and research they could get more bang for the buck and look good while doing it. The M777 (new Howitzer) started as a Marine-Canada project. Then the Army bought into it and ended up funding most of the purchases after the Marines ponyed up the R and D. Everyone wins.Redleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01534394987193749869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-446331158288124266.post-53517086654556512562010-03-22T16:19:45.113-07:002010-03-22T16:19:45.113-07:00I was thinking more big items (artillery, ground v...I was thinking more big items (artillery, ground vehicles, aviation) but the more I think about it, there are some obvious reasons why can't easily unify the big items; you still need some diversification for unique missions. <br /><br />Thanks for clarifying. Very interesting indeed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-446331158288124266.post-21951749849137054802010-03-22T05:49:39.408-07:002010-03-22T05:49:39.408-07:00WE are already there. Common gear is already pret...WE are already there. Common gear is already pretty standardized. The biggest thing is getting all of our communcations gear to talk to each other and we are actually looking really good in that area too.Redleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01534394987193749869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-446331158288124266.post-49544617707817897402010-03-19T16:22:20.639-07:002010-03-19T16:22:20.639-07:00So do you think that arms and equipment might star...So do you think that arms and equipment might start to get more standardized across the services or will they continue to have their own streams/lines of equipment?<br /><br />Obvious that you won't see the Army ordering Carriers, but it stands to reason that USMC and USA may start to make things much more uniform across the board, including some aspects of aviation as you go more and more into the purple mode.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-446331158288124266.post-22510214325362638282010-03-19T05:52:17.163-07:002010-03-19T05:52:17.163-07:00The major difference between then and now is that ...The major difference between then and now is that what we have set up is 1) law, 2) all services have bought into it so we more or less cooperate and 3) actually have adapted our services and training to really use it. WWII required huge politicing and arm twisting to get everyone one the same page, we accept it without any issue. If you go to PACOM (Pacific) you accept that the boss is going to be a Navy guy. Europe is likely an Army guy. Centcom could be anyone. Stratcom is AF or Navy. No one complains or argues as it makes sense to us. That in and of itself is a major change.Redleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01534394987193749869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-446331158288124266.post-75367832787665213332010-03-18T08:54:55.380-07:002010-03-18T08:54:55.380-07:00Fair enough - I was thinking that some of the D-Da...Fair enough - I was thinking that some of the D-Day operations and Operation Cobra would apply, but the more I think about it, even those you could argue were really Army centric (Army Air Corps + Ground Army - Not a true joint Air Force/Army Operation).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-446331158288124266.post-482279791904049122010-03-17T20:11:23.172-07:002010-03-17T20:11:23.172-07:00One reason why we didn't have more issues on t...One reason why we didn't have more issues on this was due to two things. One, the POTUS was strong and he had no trouble laying down the law when needed. Two, our enemies couldn't work together to save their lives. Hell, our enemies military branches couldn't work together. The Luffwaffe and the Wermacht, the Japanese Imperial Army and Navy, absolutely chaotic. Hell, the Japanese Army literally made its own Navy rather than have to ask the Navy for help. Makes our Cooperation shine, rough edges aside.Redleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01534394987193749869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-446331158288124266.post-28508628630486601992010-03-17T20:07:44.392-07:002010-03-17T20:07:44.392-07:00Not exactly Alex, we did do it but it was never re...Not exactly Alex, we did do it but it was never really Joint as we understand it now. Yes WWII did give some good example of inter-service cooperation, but still not quite what was needed. I probably should have used the phrase Inter-service Cooperation instead of Joint as that would be more accurate. <br /><br />Example of why this wasn't Joint: MacArthur and Nimtz in the Pacific. We had to divide this area because neither one would work under the other. It was re-drawn several times to make things work.Redleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01534394987193749869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-446331158288124266.post-15605885062709934892010-03-16T16:01:32.473-07:002010-03-16T16:01:32.473-07:00Mike,
You should look at WWII for several good exa...Mike,<br />You should look at WWII for several good examples of Joint Operations from a historical perspective. I would argue that this is the first time it was done on a regular basis in the US military and it set the groundwork for what you're seeing now. Of course there were times it didn't go smoothly, but it was regular practice during this war.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com