question about the factions
- Thread starter Marine86
- Start date
Up until recently I thought "USMC" was a title place holder for the USA faction because the first units happened to be USMC (the same way I've been calling the EFTF faction the "Brits"). I thought that as the game got closer to launch they'd change it officially to the "USA" faction, but that doesn't appear to be happening which is a shame.
With the EFTF I have choice between their "sub-factions". Sure, I may get drunk and buy a French tank for its comedy value but probably not, I can just field the British stuff I like and still have an official EFTF force. Not so with the "USMC" faction. The more I read about US hardware the more I learn that the models I'd like to own aren't used by the USMC.
It seems the different US branches work in co-operation the way an EFTF would so why not make it the "USA" faction and give us USAF aircraft and US army stuff.
The PLA is a national faction, the MEA is a multi-national alliance and so is the EFTF. What is the USMC? Either call it the USA and make it a national faction or add Canadians and Australians to it and call it a multi-national alliance. Doesn't make any sense to have a branch and such narrow choices from a defence force so well renown for the diversity of its hardware.
With the EFTF I have choice between their "sub-factions". Sure, I may get drunk and buy a French tank for its comedy value but probably not, I can just field the British stuff I like and still have an official EFTF force. Not so with the "USMC" faction. The more I read about US hardware the more I learn that the models I'd like to own aren't used by the USMC.
It seems the different US branches work in co-operation the way an EFTF would so why not make it the "USA" faction and give us USAF aircraft and US army stuff.
The PLA is a national faction, the MEA is a multi-national alliance and so is the EFTF. What is the USMC? Either call it the USA and make it a national faction or add Canadians and Australians to it and call it a multi-national alliance. Doesn't make any sense to have a branch and such narrow choices from a defence force so well renown for the diversity of its hardware.
docrailgun
Mongoose
How likely is it, though, for normal (not Special Forces or Airborne troops) US Army units to be sent to Gotalotofoilistan as an Expeditionary or rapid-response troops? Not very. Marines, though... yes. So, it doesn't seem much of a stretch to say that any US forces that enter the theatre are part of a Marine-commanded force.
Secesh said:
shotgun-toting chipmunk
Mongoose
Yes, the US military is going more "purple" (joint). However, they are still separate branches of the military and will remain as such. For one thing, nobody wants to give up any of their budget. cmdtorch has it somewhat right. The Marines generally go in first, as they are meant to be more of a quick reaction force. If it ends up being a real conflict, as opposed to embassy protection or the like, then you'll see joint operations come into play from the beginning. In a way, it kind of makes sense the way Mongoose is doing this. Since we're supposedly at the beginning of a conflict to protect Americans abroad and maybe help the people in Kerakhistan, the Marines would be sent in first. Then, as Washington realized things were escalating, a Joint Expeditionary Task Force would be organized and sent in.
Elvis in Combat
Mongoose
To answer a few off topic questions:
That's US propoganda. A study of WWI beyond Americas involvement from an American perspective presents a different picture. Heck, Winston Churchill claimed (after WWI) that it was the United States involvement that dragged the war out causing more deaths. Note that he denied ever making that statement but in the 1930s I would too if I thought the US was going to be needed as an ally in the future.
Also, all this French bashing is really interesting. I wonder what the 92,000 dead French soldiers think about their sacrifice during 1940?
How about the 30,000 Germans that died in combat against the French during the invasion of France? I wonder what they think about sissy France?
Or the 58,000 dead French soliders that died later in the Middle East and in the ETO?
Gosh, that sure shows some weak willed troops there. Makes sense to have them run away in a game right? :roll:
French troops were not in any sense less patriotic or willing to give thier lives than any other nation. They were probably more willing to die during WWI ref: Verdun but certainly didn't throw down thier weapons and run any more than any other nation in either war.
Tactically the French were no better/worse than other nations. As an example; most people are unaware of this but DeGaulle gathered together a large number of tanks and struck at the flank of the Germans during the race to the Channel. That slowed the Germans down and Hitler "went defensive" (he had a habit of swinging from aggressive to defensive moods) was more inclined to listen to someone like his thug buddy Goering about using air power to destroy the troops that were going to begin evacuation.
Stratigically, the French military were well behind the curve and suffered for it on a grand scale.
But for 1940 the French had some decent equipment, unlike the Italian soliders. Who were truly some tough soliders considering how poorly they were led both on the field and more importantly poorly led and equiped by their thug government.
Before spouting common cultural ignorance please take some time and do some research. It's amazing what's out there to learn when you actually start looking beyond the <insert country> specific generalized propoganda material.
If anyone wants to play "but I disagree" with me you should start a new topic and/or PM me directly. Note that you had better use some sources because if you want to go there I'm happy to but will require some serious references for statements and numbers, etc. I can reference all of the above, given time. I wrote a paper on the invasion of France so I have no problem digging it all out (well aside from me getting off my lazy butt to do so) and pulling the references.
You are now returned to reading posts hopefully on-topic.
TabletopWarrior said:
That's US propoganda. A study of WWI beyond Americas involvement from an American perspective presents a different picture. Heck, Winston Churchill claimed (after WWI) that it was the United States involvement that dragged the war out causing more deaths. Note that he denied ever making that statement but in the 1930s I would too if I thought the US was going to be needed as an ally in the future.
The French kept the Italians from successfully invading their nation when they were losing to the Germans in the north of their nation. I would consider that beating Mussolini.TabletopWarrior said:
Also, all this French bashing is really interesting. I wonder what the 92,000 dead French soldiers think about their sacrifice during 1940?
How about the 30,000 Germans that died in combat against the French during the invasion of France? I wonder what they think about sissy France?
Or the 58,000 dead French soliders that died later in the Middle East and in the ETO?
Gosh, that sure shows some weak willed troops there. Makes sense to have them run away in a game right? :roll:
French troops were not in any sense less patriotic or willing to give thier lives than any other nation. They were probably more willing to die during WWI ref: Verdun but certainly didn't throw down thier weapons and run any more than any other nation in either war.
Tactically the French were no better/worse than other nations. As an example; most people are unaware of this but DeGaulle gathered together a large number of tanks and struck at the flank of the Germans during the race to the Channel. That slowed the Germans down and Hitler "went defensive" (he had a habit of swinging from aggressive to defensive moods) was more inclined to listen to someone like his thug buddy Goering about using air power to destroy the troops that were going to begin evacuation.
Stratigically, the French military were well behind the curve and suffered for it on a grand scale.
But for 1940 the French had some decent equipment, unlike the Italian soliders. Who were truly some tough soliders considering how poorly they were led both on the field and more importantly poorly led and equiped by their thug government.
Before spouting common cultural ignorance please take some time and do some research. It's amazing what's out there to learn when you actually start looking beyond the <insert country> specific generalized propoganda material.
If anyone wants to play "but I disagree" with me you should start a new topic and/or PM me directly. Note that you had better use some sources because if you want to go there I'm happy to but will require some serious references for statements and numbers, etc. I can reference all of the above, given time. I wrote a paper on the invasion of France so I have no problem digging it all out (well aside from me getting off my lazy butt to do so) and pulling the references.
You are now returned to reading posts hopefully on-topic.
Elvis in Combat
Mongoose
shotgun-toting chipmunk & any others that know,
Who were the first US troops to go into:
Afganistan
Iraq
I don't know and I'm curious if they were marines?
Does the US have a plan for various branches or units to go into different areas?
Meaning something like ;
landlocked = Send in the Rangers/paratroopers
Water access and fleet closeby = Send in the Marines
I guess this is also off topic please forgive me for it.
Who were the first US troops to go into:
Afganistan
Iraq
I don't know and I'm curious if they were marines?
Does the US have a plan for various branches or units to go into different areas?
Meaning something like ;
landlocked = Send in the Rangers/paratroopers
Water access and fleet closeby = Send in the Marines
I guess this is also off topic please forgive me for it.
The USMC will only be sent in from carrier/assault fleets, thats there job, assault from the sea, if they went by land they'd cease to be marines and become the army.
sure sometimes marines may go in to a landlocked theatre of operation but that would be as a stop gap stop before the main more suited forces arrives, afetrall carriers would be closer than the US, Germany or south korea.
sure this is from wikipedia but it gets the point done.
sure sometimes marines may go in to a landlocked theatre of operation but that would be as a stop gap stop before the main more suited forces arrives, afetrall carriers would be closer than the US, Germany or south korea.
shotgun-toting chipmunk
Mongoose
If you want to get technical, Special Forces units are generally the first ones in.
As far as main forces go, the Marines usually go first because they can get a large amount of troops in-theater faster than the Army can.
In a planned-out war, ie Operation Desert Storm, one of the first groups in will actually be Air Force Security Forces and Civil Engineers to set up a "bare base" for fighters, attack aircraft, etc. This fits in with the US strategy of "bomb the **** out of 'em first, the let the Army clean up." The Army is trying to get to the point where they can deploy a full brigade within 72 hours, but that's a good ways off (ideally, right about the time BF:Evo is supposed to take place...)
I'll need to double check my sources, but I think Army special forces and USMC were in Afghanistan/OEF first, and USAF and Army hit Iraq/OIF first. OEF was a short notice assault, while OIF had plenty of buildup first. I know for sure that the Marines took Kandahar in Afghanistan (my buddy's unit was the first one in).
As far as main forces go, the Marines usually go first because they can get a large amount of troops in-theater faster than the Army can.
In a planned-out war, ie Operation Desert Storm, one of the first groups in will actually be Air Force Security Forces and Civil Engineers to set up a "bare base" for fighters, attack aircraft, etc. This fits in with the US strategy of "bomb the **** out of 'em first, the let the Army clean up." The Army is trying to get to the point where they can deploy a full brigade within 72 hours, but that's a good ways off (ideally, right about the time BF:Evo is supposed to take place...)
I'll need to double check my sources, but I think Army special forces and USMC were in Afghanistan/OEF first, and USAF and Army hit Iraq/OIF first. OEF was a short notice assault, while OIF had plenty of buildup first. I know for sure that the Marines took Kandahar in Afghanistan (my buddy's unit was the first one in).
