Is the Army or Navy more fundamentally important? Thoughts?

USNAHopeful1

USNAHopeful1

USNA 2026 (Plebe-To-Be)
Joined
Mar 19, 2021
Messages
26
I had a conversation with my fellow MIDN today and considering our bias toward the Navy, myself and many of my friends still had a hard time coming to a conclusion. In our discussion we understand the mutual relationship Army and Navy have together, however the question of which is more FUNDAMENTALLY important is hard. I personally believe that an Army is more important, however a Navy is more important once an Army is in place. I would love to hear your thoughts. I think this is a great question.
 
This is a discussion that we had at ACSC "once upon a time."

In the end, we concluded that it was a subjective question. The navy...okay, it's a highly impressive force projection vehicle. Think about it...you're a belligerent government with an ocean coastline. You're causing problems and the global community is talking tough. You laugh. Then you wakeup one morning to learn there's a carrier battle group parked nearby...force projection.

That being said, I do not believe you will ever see a classic sea battle (to include crossing the T) again. I think fleets will be relegated to the role described: force projection. That and disaster relief. I laughed when I heard that at ACSC until a navy SWO said "have you any idea of the humanitarian relief capacity of a CVN? FYI, for those not familiar with navy terms a CVN is a nuclear powered aircraft carrier. I was one that did NOT know. He then told me. I was stunned. Picture a carrier in a harbor of a location devastated by natural disaster; the people have no fresh water or medical support. Bring in the carrier...if memory serves, they can produce almost 200k gallons of drinking water a day. And medical support? They have multiple operating theaters, full medical staffs that can handle pretty much anything, a large galley (food in a crisis) as well as transporting helo's, etc...etc. VERY impressive. And it's not just the carriers that can do this. This is just a little that I recall from the discussions we had.

The army. Face it, in a combat situation where the objective is to defeat an enemy and take/occupy/liberate the land, you MUST have boots on the ground. That means the army. The marines are a great "temporary" strike force, they're mobile, agile, and just good. However, they're too small. The army is large, mobile, diverse in combat power, and very integrated into the combat force. I had the chance to spend some time with an army unit and was able to observe what they do. I would not want to do what they do; the land battlefield is a highly dangerous area. And they are there, all the time, every time, and ready to go. My hats off to them. They are a "in your face" force projection tool. They also have the ability to convert to a humanitarian force, bringing in all manner of support to disaster areas.

So which is more important? I actually think both are. I use my first war, Desert Storm, as an example. I flew USAF jets. I got to the AOR via a lot of air refueling (and a very sore rear). The air bridge was critical. Airlifters were able to move troops, equipment, and supplies very quickly to establish a "beachhead" until the navy could bring the bulk of EVERYTHING over on their ships. Airlift is amazing but let's face it, the navy can carry a WHOLE lot more at one time and deliver it. They brought in everything. They also brought in airpower. The army? They brought the land battle force that ended the war. The marines brought in the quick strike "we're not here, and then we are" impact force.

And I'm reaching the end of a long posting and the conclusion I've reached is the same we did then: the truly unified force we have is a combined arms force that works together, in harmony (except at the bar), to bring about success in our endeavors.

Too much?
 
kinnem said:
+1 to flieger. That being said, I've always thought the US is Athens and our enemies are Sparta. Ponder that.
Click to expand...
Speaking of Sparta, during our DS locked down ghost company Covid plebe summer his SEL offered books. DS started Gates of Fire and asked me to read it.
I just read it for the second time. Still spellbound. Excellent read.
 
flieger83 said:
This is a discussion that we had at ACSC "once upon a time."

In the end, we concluded that it was a subjective question. The navy...okay, it's a highly impressive force projection vehicle. Think about it...you're a belligerent government with an ocean coastline. You're causing problems and the global community is talking tough. You laugh. Then you wakeup one morning to learn there's a carrier battle group parked nearby...force projection.

That being said, I do not believe you will ever see a classic sea battle (to include crossing the T) again. I think fleets will be relegated to the role described: force projection. That and disaster relief. I laughed when I heard that at ACSC until a navy SWO said "have you any idea of the humanitarian relief capacity of a CVN? FYI, for those not familiar with navy terms a CVN is a nuclear powered aircraft carrier. I was one that did NOT know. He then told me. I was stunned. Picture a carrier in a harbor of a location devastated by natural disaster; the people have no fresh water or medical support. Bring in the carrier...if memory serves, they can produce almost 200k gallons of drinking water a day. And medical support? They have multiple operating theaters, full medical staffs that can handle pretty much anything, a large galley (food in a crisis) as well as transporting helo's, etc...etc. VERY impressive. And it's not just the carriers that can do this. This is just a little that I recall from the discussions we had.

The army. Face it, in a combat situation where the objective is to defeat an enemy and take/occupy/liberate the land, you MUST have boots on the ground. That means the army. The marines are a great "temporary" strike force, they're mobile, agile, and just good. However, they're too small. The army is large, mobile, diverse in combat power, and very integrated into the combat force. I had the chance to spend some time with an army unit and was able to observe what they do. I would not want to do what they do; the land battlefield is a highly dangerous area. And they are there, all the time, every time, and ready to go. My hats off to them. They are a "in your face" force projection tool. They also have the ability to convert to a humanitarian force, bringing in all manner of support to disaster areas.

So which is more important? I actually think both are. I use my first war, Desert Storm, as an example. I flew USAF jets. I got to the AOR via a lot of air refueling (and a very sore rear). The air bridge was critical. Airlifters were able to move troops, equipment, and supplies very quickly to establish a "beachhead" until the navy could bring the bulk of EVERYTHING over on their ships. Airlift is amazing but let's face it, the navy can carry a WHOLE lot more at one time and deliver it. They brought in everything. They also brought in airpower. The army? They brought the land battle force that ended the war. The marines brought in the quick strike "we're not here, and then we are" impact force.

And I'm reaching the end of a long posting and the conclusion I've reached is the same we did then: the truly unified force we have is a combined arms force that works together, in harmony (except at the bar), to bring about success in our endeavors.

Too much?
Click to expand...
And that one day in December where I hope Navy sings second.
 
Once upon a time, there was only army. As warfare became more advanced and enlarged, specialization became important to dominate sea and air. Now even cyber is looking to be a specialty on its own. With electronics everywhere, you can disable all of army, navy, airforce with a strong cyber group offense.
 
It takes them all. It's a question for politicians with stars on their shoulders only begging politicians in suits for more money. And please remember Eisenhower's words: "When final victory is ours, no organization will deserve more credit than the Merchant Marine." A two front war across two oceans. That's how all the people and all that stuff got there.
 
Using my classic lawyerly voice, it all depends. If a nation is landlocked or mostly so, it would not seem prudent to try and field or maintain a naval force. But for the US, we have two sweeping coast lines, not to mention Alaska and Hawaii surrounded by water.

Separately, the earth is ~70 percent water, somewhere near 80% lives within 100 miles of water, around 90% of world trade is conveyed by water, and in excess of 95% of the internet cabling runs under the ocean floor. Add to this consideration that the arctic is becoming a major area of interest for the world, and north of Canada will become a major trade route.

Our Constitution specifically calls out piracy because the founding fathers understood the importance of sea going trade. Our Constitution also mentions Congress will provide and maintain a Navy. What does it say of the Army?

Article I, Section 8, Clause 12:
[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; . . .

There was concern over keeping a bunch of armed military people around with nothing to do, who knows what they might try to do? And then there is the somewhat famous quote of George Washington...."It follows then as certain as that night succeeds the day, that without a Decisive Naval force we can do nothing definitive. and with it everything honorable and glorious.”

So, I leave it to the good people on here. But, if all we had was an Army, there would be a lot of threats floating off the coastline. And if we had no Army, Europe would have nobody to call for help on virtually every single thing that went wrong on their continent. :cool:
 
The US Navy already has a violent well trained ground force ready to be turned lose to scare and or kill our nations enemies. And that ground force is really good. And really violent.

Does the US Army have lots of Army ships and a navy of its own?

The USMC ——-the deciding factor for the win. Unless you also want to add in the Navy’s very powerful air wing.

We could in fact make it without a US Army. We would just have to make the USMC larger.
 
Subs. That’s where it’s at. Those stealthy 🥷 underwater beasts always working….always on the look out.

Fact of the matter, they are all a well oiled machine working together as the worlds best Military 🇺🇸✈️ ⚓️😤💪 🗡 💦 🫡

‘MERICA!!
 
Another way to ask the question

Do we need either?

I doubt any of us would support this model but you could have one US military not a number of military services.

One Head of the military followed by ground assets, air assets, sea or naval assets, space assets, and spec ops assets all a part of the same military service just different jobs..

You could move from one job to another and stay in the same military.
 
Ultimately, you cannot control, conquer, or defend land without an army. That said, not having a navy makes any coastal area vulnerable and limits trade. A coastal nation needs both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top