New Forums & Sub-Forums? The Evolution of Army.ca

[Mike Bobbitt]

Not a bad idea, the equipment forum is growing pretty fast... Any other opinions on it?

 

[KevinB]

Sure - break weapons off --- I can tie up a whole forum  ;D

 

[Burrows]

I have no problem with it

 

[Yard Ape]

Not a bad idea, the equipment forum is growing pretty fast... Any other opinions on it?

Guess there was not much popular support.

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

I think people just haven't read this post... Maybe a poll in the Equipment forum itself...?

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

For the record, the poll is here:

http://army.ca/forums/threads/17785.0.html

I've now split Equipment into 4 forums: the main "Equipment" forum and 3 sub-forums:

* Weapons
* Vehicles
* Buy / Sell / Trade

Sub forums may not be the most popular approach, and it can be changed later, but it keeps all the equipment posts together and stops the main page from growing rediculously long.

Anyone have feedback on the new system?

 

[McG]

I was thinking a "Combat Arms" forum within the section "The Field". I know each combat arm has its own forum, but this would provide a shared forum for common issues of combat team/battle group tactics, training, kit, etc.

I've often thought the combat arms should all be together

I prefer to see them seperate (as is), but I would also be a frequent contributor to a all combat arms forum.

Instead of a Combat Arms Forum, I think a Strategy, Doctrine, and Tactics forum would see more traffic and provide broader arcs including interaction between the Cbt Arms and CSS (while still generaly covering most of the same potential thread topics as a Cbt Arms forum).

I know there are already plenty of threads that could fill any of these options.

 

[Infanteer]

I like that idea, McG.  Perhaps Military Theory would be another heading?

 

[McG]

I cannot find the post, but I was certain that I had read someone else recommend a "Field Force" forum.  It would be for topics of deployable elements of the Cbt Arms & CSS (so anything up to a brigade).  Basically the same as what is suggested above but with slightly different arcs.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

IMHO, there is more than enough forums allready. I find that if the traffic is too widely spread out, some things don't get read. Look when the two threads folded last week, a lot off the topics got new life in the more widely read forums.

 

[McG]

I am noticing more & more threads that are on all combat arms topics, so I'll push this thought again.   Would there be any interest in:

    A) a Combat Arms board in "The Field" section (the Infantry, Armoured, Engineer, and Artillery boards could remain or become sub-boards of the Combat Arms board); or

    B) a Strategy, Doctrine, and Tactics board in "The Field" section ; or

    C) a Field Force board in "The Field" section .

 

[spenco]

I typed up a reply but it seems to have disappeared... ill type what I remember:

IMHO I agree with Bruce Monkhouse, we have too many sub-forums.  People do not know where to look or post.  Just curious, how many topics have had to be moved recently due to people posting in the wrong sub-forum?  Anyways, I think we should be amalgamating some sub-forums instead of creating new ones.  We don't need sub-forums for every forum on the site, it is redundant.

 

[McG]

There could be only two forums and I think we would still have the problem of threads in the wrong spot.  It is not so much confusion as people not putting thought into where threads are created.

However, the only way to resolve this is with a poll, and with a wiggle of my nose, there it is.

 

[spenco]

Just curious, what is the difference between the first and last option in the poll?  They both are to leave it the same correct??  ???

 

[McG]

No.  The first option is to create a generic combat arms forum (equal and in addition to the existing Infantry, Armour, Engineer, and Artillery forums).

 

[spenco]

Ah ok, my apoligies.

 

[McG]

Just to give an idea of some of what might fit in a generic Cbt Arms forum:
What does a Tank Squadron or Rifle Company look like? (FYI)
Garrison establishment versus mobility
The Downward Diffusion of Combined Arms
Light Forces
Combat Team of tomorrow?
The Manouvre Officer: Combining MOCs 21 and 23
Armoured Taking Over as a FOO
Should Armour take over TUA?

The other two new forum options would have broader arcs and could include all the above and:
What Should the Army's Role & Structure Be?
Adopting the regiment as a regular force formation
The Reserve Force Regimental System & Restructure

and here is one that would fit in a cbt arms forum or a field force forum:
Comparing the Combat Arms (Inf vs. Engr vs. Armd vs. Arty)

 

[Infanteer]

I think that a suitable title (on top of all the branch forums) would be a "Combined Arms" forum - this could imply other elements that are not specifically part of the "Combat Arms" branch.

It'll encourage us to get out of our stovepipes....

 

[McG]

I diluted things by giving so many options in favour of something new.  But so far, 52% want some type of new forum with the big contenders being 26% in favour of some kind of generic Cbt Arms forum and 21.7% in favour of a Strategy, Doctrine, and Tactics Forum.

 

[McG]

I think that a suitable title (on top of all the branch forums) would be a "Combined Arms" forum

That is basically the same thing as the one I've titled "Field Force" except that it would also include discusions of deployable formations (the CMBGs and CBGs).