Poll: US Army
- Thread starter Aur0ra145
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'd say it would be a tie between aviation and armour. I know that lot of people that try to go into aviation don't get to actually fly planes its like the top of the class guys. So i think tanks and troop transports would be the way to go but that's probably the same situation as aviation.
Yep, I'm that pilot. The Air Force really put me off, besides I can finish off my ATP ticket after I get out. I just want someone to ask questions who has been in and knows what the heck is going on.Pararaptor said:
Aviation is a possibility, just I need to be in before I transfer over. Aviation is a combat arm to an extent, but getting a slot prior to being in the Army is above difficult, they work kinda weird.
Signal isn't a combat arm.
Here is the very short version of my opinion. With current operations, your best bet if you want a combat job lies in the infantry. The sad fact is, there aren't many operations where armor is necessary (nor even possible to bring for any number of reasons) and the same goes for artillery. Thus you'll find that with either choice, your odds of slogging about on patrol with the poor bloody infantry is quite high.
Aviation on the other hand virtually guarntees you a job in the air, but the catch is there is no guarntee you'll be granted the coveted right to fly something properly armed for combat. The bulk of Air Operations the Army conducts are transport and logistical duties, and as such you run a very high probability of flying a cargo or utility helicopter rather than an attack or recon helicopter.
Personally, when I was in the army (7 OCT 2003 - 6 OCT 2007) I was in the intelligence community, and this is the only job that I can speak on with any real authority. The field has several branches notably split into two distinct categories - collection and analysis. The collectors do exactly what one would expect: they collect intelligence. This may be technical collection of signal intelligence (The civillian agency that does the same thing is the NSA), or a more personal collection of human intelligence (source running, interrogations and so forth. the CIA is the civillian arm of this effort). The analyitical side of things takes the unprocessed data that results from the various collection efforts and uses it in order to predict future trends and actions in the enemy ranks (which is what I personally did).
Within the collection side, the huamn intelligence collectors are the most varied. Some of them are are assembled into small teams that spend much of their time "outside the wire", whereas others work in central locations dealing with walk-in sources and still others work at detention facilities as interrogators. I never once heard of a technical collection specialist being sent into the field regularly, generally because such personel are assigned to military intelligence units (which very generally provide services to a very large echelon of troops).
On the analytical side of things, your job is based almost exclusively on what sort of unit you are assigned to. At the lowest level, analysts are assigned to a Batallion's Headquarters company, specifically the S-2 section. These people are responsible for producing very, very specific intelligence - the precise location of an IED, the activity of a single insurgent cell and so forth. This is simply because a batallion is responsible for a relatively small battlespace and such levels of detail directly affect the comings and goings of the entire unit. The next higher level places one in an divisional posting and their scope widens dramatically. They are often concerned with general trends of activity across a very large portion of a theater and as such the specific things they worry about are on a much wider scale. The placement of an individual IED is unlikely to concern the activities of the division at large and as such they are often concerned with questions like where are the bombs coming from and where is a particual insurgent or terrorist organization going to focus it's efforts. At the highest level, one is assignes to the headquarters element of an entire corp or theater and again the scope of questions widen. Theater wide trends become important (new tactics, techniques and procedures across the theater, social and political considerations, tracking activity and predicting enemy activity that threatens the war effort as a whole, etc). I personally spent all of my time at the highest levels.
If you are interested in better details of the intelligence community, I may be able to assist, but there are of course specifics that I am unable to discuss.
Here is the very short version of my opinion. With current operations, your best bet if you want a combat job lies in the infantry. The sad fact is, there aren't many operations where armor is necessary (nor even possible to bring for any number of reasons) and the same goes for artillery. Thus you'll find that with either choice, your odds of slogging about on patrol with the poor bloody infantry is quite high.
Aviation on the other hand virtually guarntees you a job in the air, but the catch is there is no guarntee you'll be granted the coveted right to fly something properly armed for combat. The bulk of Air Operations the Army conducts are transport and logistical duties, and as such you run a very high probability of flying a cargo or utility helicopter rather than an attack or recon helicopter.
Personally, when I was in the army (7 OCT 2003 - 6 OCT 2007) I was in the intelligence community, and this is the only job that I can speak on with any real authority. The field has several branches notably split into two distinct categories - collection and analysis. The collectors do exactly what one would expect: they collect intelligence. This may be technical collection of signal intelligence (The civillian agency that does the same thing is the NSA), or a more personal collection of human intelligence (source running, interrogations and so forth. the CIA is the civillian arm of this effort). The analyitical side of things takes the unprocessed data that results from the various collection efforts and uses it in order to predict future trends and actions in the enemy ranks (which is what I personally did).
Within the collection side, the huamn intelligence collectors are the most varied. Some of them are are assembled into small teams that spend much of their time "outside the wire", whereas others work in central locations dealing with walk-in sources and still others work at detention facilities as interrogators. I never once heard of a technical collection specialist being sent into the field regularly, generally because such personel are assigned to military intelligence units (which very generally provide services to a very large echelon of troops).
On the analytical side of things, your job is based almost exclusively on what sort of unit you are assigned to. At the lowest level, analysts are assigned to a Batallion's Headquarters company, specifically the S-2 section. These people are responsible for producing very, very specific intelligence - the precise location of an IED, the activity of a single insurgent cell and so forth. This is simply because a batallion is responsible for a relatively small battlespace and such levels of detail directly affect the comings and goings of the entire unit. The next higher level places one in an divisional posting and their scope widens dramatically. They are often concerned with general trends of activity across a very large portion of a theater and as such the specific things they worry about are on a much wider scale. The placement of an individual IED is unlikely to concern the activities of the division at large and as such they are often concerned with questions like where are the bombs coming from and where is a particual insurgent or terrorist organization going to focus it's efforts. At the highest level, one is assignes to the headquarters element of an entire corp or theater and again the scope of questions widen. Theater wide trends become important (new tactics, techniques and procedures across the theater, social and political considerations, tracking activity and predicting enemy activity that threatens the war effort as a whole, etc). I personally spent all of my time at the highest levels.
If you are interested in better details of the intelligence community, I may be able to assist, but there are of course specifics that I am unable to discuss.
I'm talking about the Aussie Defence Force here, but I opted to be a Communication Systems Operator (basically, a signalman attached to an infantry section) with the Army. One of the great things about that job are all the civilian-accredited qualifications up for grabs.
Just pick whatever you believe you'll excel at, and try to land a job with benefits that last your entire lifetime. If you don't think the airforce is for you, but you enjoy working with machines, then the armour of artillery option would be your best bet.
Just pick whatever you believe you'll excel at, and try to land a job with benefits that last your entire lifetime. If you don't think the airforce is for you, but you enjoy working with machines, then the armour of artillery option would be your best bet.
I know the signal corp isn't a combat arm but it's the one non-combat arm I've been looking at. I understand what you mean about flying not really being available. I've finally come the the conclusion that flying is my hobby and I better find a job that supports that. In all I'm going the PM with more specific questions.Eclectic Dreck said:
Sadly, I've realized this and I know I'd be the best addition to the army as a Signal Officer, but on the flip side I'd love to be a combat arms specialist. Though, honestly I've always wanted to be an officer in the military. Whatever contribution I can make that would be best for my country is what I'm prepared to do.I_am_a_Spoon said:
-Aur0ra145
Be a pilot. That would be the only branch of the armed forces I would ever remotely consider joining.
Well, if you want to be a selfless patriot, join the infantry as cannon fodder.Aur0ra145 said:
After all, airstrikes don't call themselves in.
Seriously though, if you don't enjoy your job, you won't be motivated enough to develop your personal skills and do it well. And if you can't do your job well, then you put others at risk.
And that's definitely not gonna help your country.
So do what you'll enjoy, and what you know you'll be good at.
Man be a pilot if you can..Imagine the unlimited amount of pussy you would have access too..Women love the danger types and uniforms. You have both. Just think of Maverick (Top Gun) lol.
Also Infantry would be ok but the one biggest fear for me is not dying by being shot or blown up or something but being captured and never found. I know this can happen to pilots but if you get shot down, you have ejector seats and your guys will most likely have an around about location of where you are so you can be rescued.
If you have the brains and dedication to be a pilot, then be that man for sure.
Also Infantry would be ok but the one biggest fear for me is not dying by being shot or blown up or something but being captured and never found. I know this can happen to pilots but if you get shot down, you have ejector seats and your guys will most likely have an around about location of where you are so you can be rescued.
If you have the brains and dedication to be a pilot, then be that man for sure.
avaitiaon i have been a pilot (in the RNZAF of course and not the USAF) and been attached to mobile infantry battalions and trust me sleeping in a bed/stretcher/on the ground is far better than digging a hole to sleep in plus its by far got a smaller chance of getting blown up by a booby trap and transport and logistics is not as bad as people make it out to be
The first thing you must realize in the ground forces is no matter how bad your last bed was, it can almost certainly get worse. I slept in the shelter of my HMMWV for months because it was a hell of a lot better than the alternative.Kaymish said:
