4
4
0
Air Force
Airmen
Responses: 7
7
7
0
MSgt (Join to see) Matter of semantics and perspective.
I would argue that I have Troops. They deploy, they carry weapons, they are troops. I agree that the proper Air Force terminology is Airmen, but in the Security Forces, there are Troops who are also Airmen.
In fact, just welcomed home a group of them.
I would argue that I have Troops. They deploy, they carry weapons, they are troops. I agree that the proper Air Force terminology is Airmen, but in the Security Forces, there are Troops who are also Airmen.
In fact, just welcomed home a group of them.
(7)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
CMSgt James Nolan CW5 (Join to see) I think this would boil down to an argument over labels. I think we should call each other "Airman" because we are on the Air Force. "Troop" is army terminology that doesn't fit with the Air Force, in my opinion.
Also, as a "Grammar Sergeant" I loathe the use of a collective noun used in reference to a single individual.
Also, as a "Grammar Sergeant" I loathe the use of a collective noun used in reference to a single individual.
(0)
(0)
CW5 (Join to see)
MSgt (Join to see), I'm a bit of a "Grammar Nazi" myself. Troop can be a collective noun in the Army, as in a cavalry troop (a unit); but it can also be a singular noun, as in one troop (one Soldier). I was the Trooper of the Month for the 82d Airborne Division in April 1977. A slightly different word, but I'm sure you get the point.
(1)
(0)
6
6
0
Only if you are a Grammar Nazi. To distance ourselves as an Air Force from "Army" terms like "Troop" would also require us to turn our backs on our own heritage as a former branch of the Army. Many of our most legendary heroes (Officer and Enlisted) were Army their entire career or only converted to the Air Force when it became a separate branch. Remove the unit histories of the Mighty Eighth Air Force and all the flying squadrons with histories going back to WWI.
(6)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
I disagree. Terminology and history are two different things. If they were the same we would still be privates and corporals. Our organizations would be battalions and regiments instead of groups and wings; we would live in barracks instead of dormitories. We would wear ACUs instead of ABUs.
I think maintaining a separate language is important. We will maintain an Air force identity, but we remember our heritage.
I think maintaining a separate language is important. We will maintain an Air force identity, but we remember our heritage.
(0)
(0)
TSgt Joshua Copeland
Just so the facts are correct, the Army does and Squadrons that are equivalent to Air Force Squadrons. Just because the jargon has developed over time, doesn't mean that older or alternate terms should be thrown out.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
There also aren't "Sergeants" you go straight from Senior Airmen to Staff Sergeant, and then call all manner of Sergeants (Staff-Senior Master) "Sergeant." Everyone has their cultural differences, but some of them are pretty odd.
(4)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
This has been the hardest part of my transition to the Army. That being said the only time i call someone a Sergeant that is not an E5 is a Sergeant First Class, But thats informally of course.
(0)
(0)
CMSgt James Nolan
Capt Richard I P. I am probably the odd duck in the Air Force, because I don't refer to anyone as Sgt. I refer to them by rank-they earned it. And it was the way I was raised. Semper Fi
(1)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
CMSgt James Nolan, SSG (Join to see) Gentlemen, I understand, I do the same even with joint forces. Semper Fi indeed.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google