Friday, October 24, 2003

Evangelical Outpost has an entry on how bad facilities are for the Army compared to the Air Force. A fact made worse because apparantly the Grunts aren't allowed to eat at the Wing-Nut facilities.

Now, Grunts have a history of sneaking over to the Wing-Nut chow halls. My dad did it, some of my closest friends used to do it. Me, I went wingnut to start with so I never had to worry about it.

Okay, here's what I think the case is with the Air Force and Army facilties. Mind you, this is all a guess based on what little I know about the military (nine years AD AF, three years Army JROTC, bunches of relatives in or formerly in different branches).

The Air Force tends to have more permanent structures because it's oriented that way. They're expected to be near the rear and as such all their equipment and facilities are designed with that in mind. The Army tends to require more mobility and facilities that are closer to the front or ARE the front. As such their equipment and facilities tend to be designed that way.

Because of this temporary facilities tend towards tents and other light structures for the Army and pre-fabs and semi-permanent structures for the Air Force. When you go to

It's all in how each service defines temporary, mobile, semi-permanent and permanent. I'm of the opinion that when the Army says it needs a quickly depolyed, mobile temporary structure that they're looking at a tent, whereas the Air Force is looking at a double-wide it can transport on a low-boy.

Though none of that has ever applied to chow halls, O-clubs or NCO-clubs. I have no idea why that is.

Now this could be entirely wrong, I'm no expert on building policy for any branch of the armed forces. Now if the topic were early 14th century coat of plates...


No comments: