Re: NAC units, was Odd FT Idea

Stuart Murray wrote:

> >Again I for one would be VERY surprised if the  British Army untis
and the
> US forces actually merge.  th etactical doctrines for the Royal
Marines and
> Paras are so completely at odds with those for the American forces
(hey, it
> would mean that the US troops have to start tabbing with bergens
[walking
> places with a big backpack] instead of catching a ride all the time,
flame
> barrier, this is a weak attempt a humour !) that, to me at least, it
makes
> more sense retaining these troops in thier specialised roles than
> attempting to merge them as they are.  Alternatively, instead of
merging
> these units both older units are completely scrapped and a new unit is
> started in its place, though given the British traditions of holding
on to
> stuff for the sake of it i can't really see that happening.
>

You're lucky  I read that attempt at humor disclaimer. I had my M202
"flash"
device out and was ready to fire it off point blank. We've been "humping
rucks"
as heavy and as far as anyone long as we've been an army.

Anyway, I believe that the best route is to retain the units in both
sides armies
intact in the short term, I don't know how long but years. (the whole
idea of a
conglomerated NAC is a little hockey to begin with but since we're going
with
it,) I would keep historical designations from both forces since we damn
sure
aren't gonna start calling ourselves the Queen's anything. <g>

Los
(Gotta find some coffee)