Talk:Louisiannan Military

From IBWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

This article needs a rewrite to be more Wiki-like. I'll be doing it in the next coupla hours. BoArthur 17:33, 28 Sep 2005 (PDT)

Here's commentary moved from the article.

If you research the Ribeira affair in St. Onge, you'll see that it was nearly activated to protect St. Onge from a perceived Floridian threat. Those who don't choose a military career go to the Guard National. It's actually based on the Swiss national guard *here*. Otherwise it's much like here.

We've just upgraded to the latest in air-tech, the Spretu Fighters for our Air-Carriers. I don't know what tank-tech is like *there*...but I'm sure Louisianne is in parity, tech wise...not necessarily number wise.

Just wanted to say that I like what I see. Too often what I see when it comes to military design are things that don't actually make that much sense or are just too generic. These designs are neither. Likewise the history of it all makes plenty of sense as well, having a "feel" that fits with the nation. Zahir 08:00, 29 Sep 2005 (PDT)

One interesting thing I found while researching the french republic (for my Day of Glory[1] timeline) that you might to include in Louisianna's military is the absence of regiments.

Under the ancient regime, a regiment was own by its colonel (who had to be a nobleman) and bore his name. Because of this association, the republic abolished both the regimental system (replacing them with numbered battalion grouped into demi-brigade) and changed the name "Colonel" with Chef de Bataillon [battalion chief] (the lieutenant colonel became Sous-Chef de Bataillon) --Marc Pasquin 18:03, 29 Sep 2005 (PDT)

I'll add it. :)

I was wondering if, other than the Republican Guard listed, are there any special Elites within the Louisiannan Infantry? Akin to Rangers or Commandoes *here* for exmaple? Or perhaps such is part of the Republican Guard--the part that is more than just ceremonial? Zahir 11:42, 1 Oct 2005 (PDT)
Final word to Dan but I don't think that would fit with its primary role: insuring the safety of dignitaries. Elite units as you've mentioned would more then probably be part of the infantry.
Note also that although I haven't mentioned it, the republican guard (at least in france) is not part of the Land army, it is part of the gendarmerie which although a police force, is organised and treated as military in most aspect.--Marc Pasquin 12:05, 1 Oct 2005 (PDT)

The Louisiannan Military is not comparable to that of the USA as the Military serves mostly in a defensive nature, as compared to the US military, which as we know is offensive. That being said, I'm sure that there are commando type units within the infantry, but by and large the standing Army is mostly (heretofore) guarding the southern border with Tejas and AC and with Florida. These days, the military is shrinking the number of personnel by about 10% BoArthur 12:17, 1 Oct 2005 (PDT)

I'm going to take some small issue with this. The US military is not primarily offensive, because if it were quite a lot more pieces of real estate would be flying an American flag.

The problem is more complex, because *here* the Cold War happened, and two generations lived with the fear/planning of a third world war. More, it was assumed that conflicts would erupt but be small, wars between the superpowers by proxy. (Whether this was a particularly accurate way to look upon the situation is another whole issue) IB has a happier situation in that no one has been expecting GW3 or sees any particular duality between particular superpowers. For one thing, IB's superpowers are much more loosely organized and for another they get along better than the ones *here* for a variety of reasons. So the NAL, for example, has militarily pretty much the same stance the US had during the 19th century--preparedness in the face of local difficulties and interests (albeit on a much larger scale). The polarization that happened as a result of WW1 and WW2 simply didn't happen in IB, so the perceived needs of defense were nowhere near as lavish. This is in now way a defense of any specific policy or military action by the US since 1945 (of which I have actually a broad range of opinions on a case-by-case basis). But it is important to note that in order for the Bush administration to successfully argue that invading Iraq was a good policy, it had to make the point this was [u]a case of self defense[/u]. Please note I've tried to make this whole mini-tirade a comparison between *here* and IB. IB is in some ways a much luckier place to live. Zahir 14:37, 1 Oct 2005 (PDT)

I think Dan means (and I have to agree) that the US military, unlike some countries, is not made primaraly to protect its own borders but to protect its interest oversea. So "offensive" in this case as opposed to "defensive", not in the sense of "conquering".-- 18:13, 1 Oct 2005 (PDT)

-- 18:13, 1 Oct 2005 (PDT)

Personal tools