Branches

Discussion in 'Military Academy - USMA' started by chriscross92, Jan 25, 2010.

  1. chriscross92

    chriscross92 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know branch night is far away in the horizon for me but i was just wondering which Branches typically go off the board first? which ones are for people in the middle of their class? and which ones can practically anyone get?
     
  2. BAJohnson

    BAJohnson Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    0
    I hear from cadets field artillery goes last a lot of the time and that infantry is popular but there are a lot of spots open for it so it sort of balances out.
     
  3. BeatNavy

    BeatNavy USMA Cadet

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    Messages:
    450
    Likes Received:
    0
    Medical and aviation are usually the first two to go. Intel is pretty high up as well, I think it was third last year.
     
  4. America's Finest

    America's Finest USMA Cadet

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    Messages:
    1,588
    Likes Received:
    0
    Order of close-out for the class of 2010.


    0)Branch (Top % to get branch)(Top % to get branch with ADSO*)

    1) Medical Service (30%)(51%)
    2) Aviation (39%)(59%)
    3) Military Intelligence (38%)(65%)
    4) Finance Corps (17%)(65%)
    5) Infantry (45%)(66%)
    6) Armor (67%)(80%)
    7) Engineers (55%)(86%)
    8) Signal Corps (73%)(87%)
    9) Adjutant General (90%)(91%)
    10) Air Defense Artillery (92%)(93%)
    11) Ordnance (96%)(N/A)
    12) Transportation Corps (97%)(N/A)
    13) Military Police (88%)(98%)
    14) Field Artillery (87%)(98%)
    15) Chemical Corps (98%)(N/A)
    16) Quartermaster (89%)(98%)

    *ADSO-Cadet agrees to an additional 3 years of active duty in exchange for a higher chance to receive a branch.
     
  5. BeatNavy

    BeatNavy USMA Cadet

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    Messages:
    450
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bottom line - try to at least be in the top half of your class and you should be able to get what you want (except you might have to adso for a few things like intel)
     
  6. x-ImPuLse-PL-

    x-ImPuLse-PL- Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is good info to keep in mind and consideration, for the future.

    And Armor all the way! :thumb:
     
  7. marciemi

    marciemi USMA Alumnus

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Messages:
    1,481
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hm, I graduated in the top 3% of my class and chose Quartermaster. Guess I didn't have to study quite so hard! :shake:
     
  8. BeatNavy

    BeatNavy USMA Cadet

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    Messages:
    450
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know this is rather off topic, but I kind of find it hard to see what role armor would play in a conventional war against an enemy with modern guided anitarmor weaponry. Man portable anti armor weapons are so good nowadays that two guys with a javelin can reliably take out a tank from 2500 meters and there isn't anything the tank can do about it. Also vehicle or tripod mounted TOW's can do a great job as well. In WW2 and Korea, when tanks were such a huge factor, all there was were bazookas (air support notwithstanding) which were unguided, inaccurate, and not very powerful.
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2010
  9. 11BRAVO

    11BRAVO Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2009
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    0
    And aircraft designed to take out armored vehicles do an exceptional job too!
     
  10. BeatNavy

    BeatNavy USMA Cadet

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    Messages:
    450
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well understanding that in a evenly matched war one side wont be having total air supremacy. I guess there were anti-tank artillery guns as well in WWII (german 88s in anti tank positions for example) but those still were unguided and not very effective at longer range compared to modern tanks.
     
  11. America's Finest

    America's Finest USMA Cadet

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    Messages:
    1,588
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think this deserves its own topic since it can turn into a huge discussion. :wink:

    The same argument can be made about ANY branch. With today's technology, a helicopter can easily be shot down, an infantry soldier sniped, a field artillery battery destroyed with an ICBM. If this were true, we would have all shifted to just shooting missiles from home at each other but we haven't, why? Because no branch fights alone, they all work together. Armor isn't there by itself. It is backed up by military intelligence, letting them know of possible threats, and other combat arms branches watching their back.
     
  12. 11BRAVO

    11BRAVO Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2009
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    0
    I will say of all the future soldiers posting on this board Beat Navy is very well read in militaria. That is good! You will make a fine officer as your heart is already in the right place.
     
  13. x-ImPuLse-PL-

    x-ImPuLse-PL- Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    0
    Shall we start a new discussion then? Because this can go on for a while. :smile:


    And you took the words right out of my mouth. (well the same concept, at least. Beat me to the post! :yllol:)

    But yes, technology is improving and for every military asset out on the field, there is some way to counter it. Even back in WWII, tanks were countered by infantry with molotov cocktails and sticky grenades! (to some extent, I believe) So that's why the MA's, and the military in general, focus on teamwork and coordination with as a key factor in combat. That's why armor tends to be backed up with infantry, since they each support one another and protect one another's weaknesses and form an even stronger combined strength.

    No one military asset is the best operating in the field on it's own, they're all in it together. Hence the variety of branches of the armed forces, and branches in those branches, to cover all possible aspects of warfare.

    (And please correct me if I'm wrong anywhere, as I'm only 16 and a Junior in High School, hahah)
     
  14. pedro4

    pedro4 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2008
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    Blackhawk Down

    Those soldiers in Mogadishu would have liked to had armor to ride in and support them.
     
  15. x-ImPuLse-PL-

    x-ImPuLse-PL- Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    0
    Once the two BlackHawks were shot down and things went to hell, I'm sure they would've like the support too. The division was supposed to have an AC-130,(and was it extra armored vehicles too?) but nobody followed through on it at upper HQ, I believe.

    But it did take quite a while for that armored relief column to reach those surrounded Rangers.
     
  16. sprog

    sprog Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    9
    As a former ICBM officer in the USAF, I'd just point out that, indeed, an ICBM can destroy a field artillery battery. In so doing, the missile would also destroy any civilization in the vicinity (and neighboring areas) and millions of people. A slightly disproportionate expenditure of munitions....a bit like using a machine gun to kill ants on the front porch. I know this doesn't really have anything to do with the price of beans in Peru..just thought I'd share. :biggrin:
     
  17. America's Finest

    America's Finest USMA Cadet

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    Messages:
    1,588
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah I exxagerated a bit :shake:

    Point is, technology has advanced far enough to where any single weapon or branch is obsolete without the others.
     
  18. BeatNavy

    BeatNavy USMA Cadet

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    Messages:
    450
    Likes Received:
    0
    I see the point that in guerrilla conflicts such as the current theatres of operations in the middle east (as well as the past conflict in Mogadishu), armor is a huge asset, especially APCs in moving and protecting infantry, but the reason it is so effective is because for the most part the taliban, al queada and other terrorist organizations are just equipped with small arms, RPGs, and IEDs-- all of which our armored vehicles such as Bradleys, Strykers, and Abrams are very effective at defending against. However if Country X with more sophisticated weaponry (Iran, North Korea, or Venezuela just as examples) were to start something, I am curious as to how effective armor would be.


    "there is some way to counter it" Even though technology is increasing across all fronts ,I may be wrong, but I don't see how an Abrams can exactly shoot a Javelin or a TOW out of the sky.
    Sniping has always existed, and there are countermeasures to that, and air support has always existed, and there are countermeasures to that as well (AAA, SAMs, other aircraft) and no one can count on total air supremacy in a conventional war. I may be wrong, but I just see tanks as getting decimated in a more conventional conflict when the enemy can knock you out reliably from long distances without any sort of countermeasures. I guess supporting infantry would help greatly, but its seems likely that opposing forces would still be able to launch anti armor weapons effectively.

    "I will say of all the future soldiers posting on this board Beat Navy is very well read in militaria. That is good! You will make a fine officer as your heart is already in the right place."

    Thank you! I spend a lot of time watching military channel, reading etc and I love military history. Ive considered DSS as a major at USMA as it seems very interesting and applicable to a career in the Army.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2010
  19. x-ImPuLse-PL-

    x-ImPuLse-PL- Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    0
    http://www.defensereview.com/full-s...-shield-fclas-anti-rpgmissile-defense-system/

    I could never remember the name of this defensive system, although I always thought it was really innovative. And if you have played Modern Warfare 2, when you have the Stryker APC supporting you during the battle in the American suburbs, that has a similar defensive system to this.

    I'm not positive if this can be mounted on an Abrams, though I don't see why not, as a Stryker can handle it. I saw a special on the Military channel a couple years back, and this system was explained on it.

    And maybe not Javelins or TOWs, but it's still progress in defensive capabilities, and for all we know, could become advanced enough to stop more advanced anti-tank projectiles in the future.
     
  20. Chockstock

    Chockstock "Forever One Team"

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2009
    Messages:
    731
    Likes Received:
    8
    I think that if a full-scale conflict between countries occurred, then uniformed soldiers without tanks fighting against uniformed soldiers with tanks would be at a disadvantage, even though you did cite increasing capability of infantry to counter tanks. And if Im wrong...there MUST be a legitimate reason why our government continues to fund upgrades and the maintenance of our tanks and why other nations do too. Maybe it could be a sort of an arms race. But I think our military knows what its doing :smile:
     

Share This Page