3 ms·
This is easier in theory than it is in practice. While obviously each branch puts together its own integrated units for various missions, th8e real detriment to
by mentalpiracy 11y ago
This is easier in theory than it is in practice. While obviously each branch puts together its own integrated units for various missions, th8e real detriment to this kind of idea is what you would lose when breaking down the larger command/logistics backbone of the Army/Marines/AF/Navy.
I totally agree that the current system is not maximally efficient, but how would these new integrated units be managed logistically? Would each unit field its own logistics personnel? That might make sense, but then you end up with a lot of duplicated effort for little marginal improvement. Would we need an entire separate command structure for the sole purpose of heavy equipment movement and base management/support? If no, who might be the logical choice for this role?
- maxerickson 11y agoI'm being a little sarcastic, but you could have units organized around providing logistics. Get this here, get that there. Realistically, you might just end up with even more bureaucracies defending their own turf and resisting change. The other thing that might happen is that you end up with less redundant capabilities and better integration. It's kind of stupid that the presence of a jet engine dictates that close air support be under a different command.