Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker
The Navy has probably suffered much more than the other arms too. When ships sink in the middle of the ocean, just getting into a lifeboat is no guarentee of survival. Chances are the vast majority of the ships company will perish before reaching safety. Therefore, I just can't see large units of naval personnel being formed. Yes there would be personell left on shore in supporting roles, but these would quickly be absorbed within the army, with a fair proportion also deserting if within continental US (as would members of the army, etc).
Keeping a naval command structure when almost no ships remain (a handful in the middle east and a few others scattered around the globe) is pointless. These Admirals, Captains, etc would find themselves (if they survived the nuking of the Pentagon and other areas) commanders of nothing but those few men (and women) who remained of their staff - not exactly a great resource of relevant skills and knowledge. The same could be said of the Air Force commands.
With next to no training for ground based operations, placing these people in command of ground units seems to me at least a really bad idea. therefore, why do it when there's the better alternative of attaching surplus naval and air force personell to army or marine units?
[/rambling comments]
|
Well why do you think many of the US Division weren't merge. Because every General wanted to protect their status. Wouldn't be no different when Naval and Air Force units were re-task for security/relief and other support missions... Then add in the fact that many of the officers and their officers and NCOs would have to take jobs that were lower ranks. They would move very slowly and time was on their side if they dragged their feet and stayed put to organize their own local defense/support units.
Just some thoughts...