How could the US be spread so thin? [Archive]

Jake the Plumber

01-06-2005, 07:28 PM

As I understand it, the structure of the US armed forces since WWII was to be able to maintain deployment on several fronts. There were US military bases, ammo and supply depots, constant carrier battle groups, large Reserves forces, etc etc. We pour billions into all of these assets to guarantee our security first from Communism and now (apparently) from Terrorism.

We deployed between 11-15,000 troops to Afghanistan, largely special forces, plus a collection of coalition and local units. 15,000 troops is obviously, and has been shown to be, practically worthless for doing anything other than protecting Kabul (by comparison, we are deploying 35,000 troops to Baghdad alone for the elections). Much of these troops have been rotated out or moved to Iraq; a skeleton force remains and the country is a virtual anarchy.

Our initial Iraqi deployment was, what, 120,000 troops? The brilliant plan on attacking Iraq (blitzkreig Baghdad with overwhelming force and everyone will be happy and singing in the streets) proved less brilliant every hour that passed after the initial invasion; early on, the supply lines were being hit constantly, and most of the large cities were outside of US control. Units were rushed from Germany and other locations to stabilize the region. 2 years later, the situation is slightly improved, with local governments in place in most areas, but hte infrastructure remains vulnerable and attacks are carried out on a daily basis, while rebuilding has barely begun.

On top of that, apparently we can no longer draw on our Reservists, our soldiers have had their tours extended indefinitely, we've exhausted much of our military resources, and it generally seems like there is no way we could possibly enter another military engagement of any scale elsewhere, should the need arise.

How did this happen? We have less than 200,000 troops deployed (in combat) out of a population of 294,000,000. Additionally, regardless of having among the best trained and equipped and technologically advanced militaries in the world, we are incapable of providing security in even Baghdad and Kabul. Without the British troops supporting us, the tenuous grasp on the south of the country we have would be almost impossible.

I realize that much of our military is still deployed at regional bases, and stockpiles are being reserved in case they are needed elsewhere. Also, much of our military power is naval and air power based, which isn't applicable in these situations, aside from the occasional strafing of cruise missile at a target. This is all on the Army and Marines.

But how did they get stretched so thin? How could that be allowed to happen? Who is responsible (OK, that last one is rhetorical)?

msmith537

01-06-2005, 07:34 PM

The Democrats. For not maintaining Cold War levels of troop deployments.

Sam Stone

01-06-2005, 07:39 PM

Have you forgotten "The Peace Dividend?"

The U.S. armed forces were downsized by over 300,000 soldiers between 1992 and 2001.

This was not a 'Democrat' problem, btw. Both parties managed to convince themselves that they ain't a gonna study war no more. Francis Fukuyama, a conservative, declared "The end of history", meaning that all the great battles for how society should be organized had been won. Silly man.

The same has happened every time the U.S. ended a war. Gross over-confidence in the future leading to excess military cuts.

Jake the Plumber

01-06-2005, 07:55 PM

I just dug up this link, which I'm still reading through

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=58&sequence=0

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=58&sequence=3

is interesting.

Rather obviously showing US operations & maint holding at 86 billion in '81, peaking at 107 billion in '89, and down to 92 billion around '96.

So while we were no longer at the levels of the end of the Reagan administration, we were still above or around what we were spending throughout the rest of the Cold War.

A question I have is, how the defense spending is cut. We've been and still are spending billions on developing and purchasing new jet fighters and air craft carrier groups and other projection projects, while apparently not maintaining sufficient ground forces. Were we in the Cold War mindset still?

Brutus

01-06-2005, 07:59 PM

Well, per-troop operation and maintenance costs would certainly be higher today than back in 1980. More stuff to take care of and more training to go through.

Jake the Plumber

01-06-2005, 08:04 PM

Well, per-troop operation and maintenance costs would certainly be higher today than back in 1980. More stuff to take care of and more training to go through.
Explain? We're basically spending more per-troop on things like their medical care (which Bush cut or tried to cut or whatever) and training operations?

ElvisL1ves

01-06-2005, 08:13 PM

The Iraq invasion force was supposed to be in and out, in, oh, weeks. Now it's a war of occupation and attrition, using essentially all the Army's combat capability. Got something to do with it.

Sam, good to see you've learned something in your time here.

Brutus

01-06-2005, 08:13 PM

Explain? We're basically spending more per-troop on things like their medical care (which Bush cut or tried to cut or whatever) and training operations?

And the maintenance of the myriad doo-dads that Joe Grunt now has (several hundred dollars for a geewhiz GPS unit, several thousand dollars for nightvision, IR lasers on rifles, etc.) The stuff is tough, but not soldier proof, and does require maintenance. And we have a lot of it.

But those last two cites you provided do a pretty good job of explaining the increased costs.

Little Nemo

01-06-2005, 08:24 PM

Every nation prepares to fight its last war. Between 1991 and 2001, the military based its development plans on Panama and the first Gulf War - quick wars won by overwhelming force. The less pleasant lessons of Yugoslavia and Somalia were unfortunately ignored.

Rashak Mani

01-06-2005, 08:30 PM

Read a book called "Boyd" (the fighter pilot that won the war). Its a biography... but it pretty much shows how money is spent by the pentagon.

So a lot of money is spent in super high tech gizmos or planes when maybe something 50% cheaper could do 95% of the same things. Pork Barrel politics also account for a part of the military budget...

I'm not sure that the US could really do what they planned during the Cold War... of being able to have a Major conflict and a minor one at the same time. That would have relied very heavily on reserves... even more than Iraq. It was more a "warning" so that no one might get funny ideas if the US were embroiled in a major war.

Also don't forget inflation... things cost more nowadays and what Brutus said too... more gizmos... more training...

Jake the Plumber

01-06-2005, 08:33 PM

And the maintenance of the myriad doo-dads that Joe Grunt now has (several hundred dollars for a geewhiz GPS unit, several thousand dollars for nightvision, IR lasers on rifles, etc.) The stuff is tough, but not soldier proof, and does require maintenance. And we have a lot of it.

But those last two cites you provided do a pretty good job of explaining the increased costs.
Right, fair enough.

So we have an overall reduction of force coupled with increased maintenance operating on an outdated and shortsighted battleplan inconsistent with deployed conditions.

Does that sum it up?

Brutus

01-06-2005, 08:34 PM

Read a book called "Boyd" (the fighter pilot that won the war). Its a biography... but it pretty much shows how money is spent by the pentagon.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

(That was the sound of Ultimate Suffering, in case you were wondering.)

Boyd was a damned fine pilot, but is painfully clueless when it comes to so many other aspects of the military. His conclusions about the Bradly IFV and Abrams MBT are amazingly wrong and ill-informed. Even his concept of what the F-16 should have been is pretty off.

Brutus

01-06-2005, 08:45 PM

So we have an overall reduction of force coupled with increased maintenance operating on an outdated and shortsighted battleplan inconsistent with deployed conditions.

I dunno if I would characterize our battleplan as 'outdated' or 'shortsighted'. Iraq is just an 'unnatural' stress on the system right now. Sure, we are using a contingency plan to mobilize troops, but thats what those plans are for. And short of increasing the size of the Army by a couple of hundred thousand, the Reserves will continue to be called upon. Don't forget, we were staffing parts of our operations in Kosovo and Bosnia with reservists starting in the 90's.

Hey, maybe we can outsource peacekeeping operations to China. They have scads of light infantry, and I bet we can get a good deal...

Rashak Mani

01-06-2005, 08:54 PM

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

(That was the sound of Ultimate Suffering, in case you were wondering.)

Boyd was a damned fine pilot, but is painfully clueless when it comes to so many other aspects of the military. His conclusions about the Bradly IFV and Abrams MBT are amazingly wrong and ill-informed. Even his concept of what the F-16 should have been is pretty off.
I would really like to get more info on Boyd... the bad and the good. Could you point me to your sources ? I think the Bradley was pretty much bashed away in that movie too...

Rashak Mani

01-06-2005, 08:56 PM

I don't think the US army should be larger... and even if it were large "enough" there would be too much dependence on reservists and the Iraqis would still not be throwing flowers. I don't think sticking in 50k more soldiers would make Iraq any less volatile.

A bad plan is still a bad plan even if you have lots of disposable chinese...

Brutus

01-06-2005, 09:01 PM

I would really like to get more info on Boyd... the bad and the good. Could you point me to your sources ? I think the Bradley was pretty much bashed away in that movie too...

I don't have any specific book or anything to point you to. I am just refering to some of the arguments that Boyd has made. It's just that what he says flys in the face of what I read from pretty much any other of the modern military writers.

For example, he really really really wanted the F-16 to remain in its original configuration. Light and cheap. On the surface, that doesn't sound too bad, but then you realize that the US doesn't really need a day-only dogfighter, nor has it for many decades. In fact, the F-16 has devoloped into a all-weather multimission aircraft. Sure, it costs a lot more and weighs a lot more, but it can do far more than the original. The F-16I can do things the F-16A couldn't dream of.

Then he also goes off on the Bradley and Abrams, probably the most successful IFV/MBT combo outside of Israel. Too heavy. Too complex. Et Cetera. I dunno. I get the idea that if he had his way, we'd be tooling around in T-72s and MiG-21s.

BTW, what movie?

Rashak Mani

01-06-2005, 09:10 PM

Then he also goes off on the Bradley and Abrams, probably the most successful IFV/MBT combo outside of Israel. Too heavy. Too complex. Et Cetera. I dunno. I get the idea that if he had his way, we'd be tooling around in T-72s and MiG-21s.

BTW, what movie?
The US did win WWII with those shitty Sherman tanks (well compared to Panzers)... I guess that is what Boyd is talking about in way. Machines without too many perks for half the price. I certainly agree there is a tendency for flashy technology and multiple functions that makes for costly US planes. Naturally the expensive toys work better... but at what cost ?

I don't remember him attacking the M-1 abrahams in the book though... did he ?

There is a movie with Cary Elwes about how the Bradley was developed and all the crazy things done in the Pentagon. In the movie they take out all the fuel and ammo from the Bradley during firing tests in order to make it seem safer, etc... the movie is called "The Pentagon Wars" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144550/)

RickJay

01-06-2005, 09:11 PM

There was this horrible movie with Cary Elwes about corruption in the testing of the Bradley. When I say horrible, I mean HORRIBLE. Sub-TV-movie quality.

Rashak Mani

01-06-2005, 09:19 PM

I think "Boyd" and "The Pentagon Wars" might ruffle a few feathers... especially since the US military is so overly superior to others (technically at least). Aversion to these might be a defensive reaction to attacks on that most sacred institution of the US military. Still they obviously aren't doing a great job as regards tax payers money.

Also those generals full of stars have always been aloof from the needs and requirements of the lesser mortals that they send into battle... see Rumsfeld's comments recently for example.

I've also read a British book that clearly supports the kind of bullshit we see in the Boyd book and the movie. The book is called "The Psychology of Military Incompetence." Its scary how generals and military institutions can be totally out of synch with reality.

Brutus

01-06-2005, 09:20 PM

There is a movie with Cary Elwes about how the Bradley was developed and all the crazy things done in the Pentagon. In the movie they take out all the fuel and ammo from the Bradley during firing tests in order to make it seem safer, etc... the movie is called "The Pentagon Wars" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144550/)

Damn. All downhill after The Princess Bride, eh Mr.Elwes?

And I understand Boyds sentiment, but it seems just so damned wrong. If anything, he should be fumingly mad that we inflicted the Sherman on our troops, which lead to a long line of mediocre (at best) tanks, that lasted until the 1990's.

P.S. I believe it was in a column in some magazine that he attacked the Abrams specifically.

Rashak Mani

01-06-2005, 09:25 PM

P.S. I believe it was in a column in some magazine that he attacked the Abrams specifically.
The Abraham had some trouble at the start didn't it ?
I've read that their engines keep guzzling even when they aren't moving... and therefore require horrendous amount of refueling.

Remember that the Sherman got things done... even if the individual tank commanders weren't too happy about the differences. The M-1 in a prolonged conflict might totally crash and fuck up without high levels of supply or maintenance. Small invasion aren't a good standard to say M-1's are perfect. They have naturally been improved over the years.

Lissa

01-06-2005, 10:05 PM

There was this horrible movie with Cary Elwes about corruption in the testing of the Bradley. When I say horrible, I mean HORRIBLE. Sub-TV-movie quality.

Pardon the hijack, but I am curious here. I have actually enjoyed that movie, I found it cute. I have, however, never investigated the true facts pertaining to the Bradley and I have always been skeptical of the movie (knowing of course how facts can be streeeeetched). Is the movie totally false? I mean, did the Bradley take 17 years for production? Did we produce two types of vehicles, one that was safe for a foregin country and one that was unsafe for America (like this has not happened before- i.e. Pinto)? That it cost billions of extra dollars because of inefficiency and poor leadership?

I am curious.

Brutus

01-06-2005, 10:20 PM

Did we produce two types of vehicles, one that was safe for a foregin country and one that was unsafe for America (like this has not happened before- i.e. Pinto)?

I don't think that anybody else uses the Bradley. The two main models, M2 and M3 (M2: troop-transport, the 'normal' version, and M3: Cavalry model. Carry less troops but more ammo) are both used by the US Army, and don't differ much other than amount of ammo carried.

Rashak Mani

01-07-2005, 07:51 AM

GomiBoy

01-07-2005, 08:21 AM

There's a couple of things that I wanted to talk about in this thread. It seems there are two assumptions being made about the status of the US Military at present:

1. The US is 'spread thin' because the Reserves and National Guard are on active duty.

I believe that this is actually a myth. Since the Mid-90s, a vast number of mission-critical functions (logistics, support, airlift capability, etc...) were moved from Active Duty formations in the Army, Navy, and Air Force (less so in the Marine Corps). This created a more front-line combat-oriented active duty, and a more support-oriented Reserve and NG formations.

This has resulted in that for any real-world long-term combat operation in the last 10 years has required a very large commitment of Reserve and NG formations to support them. This was true of Bosnian peacekeeping, No-Fly Zones in Northern and Southern Iraq, etc... The trigger pullers are generally Active duty, but often the ones bringing them bullets and beans are Reserve or Guard.

2. The US Military as a whole is spread thin.

I have my doubts this is actually true. If you go with the accepted model, of being able to support 2 full-scale Gulf War 1 type actions and one police action, then yes, the force is not capable of supporting this. But I believe that this is not in fact the requirement of the US military anymore. This would be like saying we need to support an invasion of North Korea, continue supporting Iraq combat operations, fight against a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, and support something along the lines of Bosnian peacekeeping, all at the same time. I realy don't think this is required.

As for true readiness for real-world missions, I think that is another area entirely. I do believe that there are some serious issues with morale, due to things being done by higher command such as stop-loss orders and back-to-back deployments to Iraq, etc... Additionally, the vital role performed by the reserve and NG complements is becomming more and more difficult, as the Reserves and NG are missing repeatedly their recruitment goals. This means that the qualified people who are in uniform are not being replaced quickly enough, and additionally that the ramp-up time of new troops will degrade operation efficiency more as the problem of replacement becomes more pronounced.

So in a nutshell, whilst I don't think the forces are truly overstretched, I do believe we are approaching a crisis in confidence amongst our armed services.

RandomLetters

01-07-2005, 10:03 AM

The US did win WWII with those shitty Sherman tanks (well compared to Panzers)... I guess that is what Boyd is talking about in way. Machines without too many perks for half the price. I certainly agree there is a tendency for flashy technology and multiple functions that makes for costly US planes. Naturally the expensive toys work better... but at what cost ?
[/URL]

Remember that the US public is a lot more sensitive to our casualty rates now than they used to be. A cheaper tank or aircraft might be more cost effective on the battlefield, but would result in higher losses on our sides, which the American people would find unacceptable, and would hurt moral in the Armed services. Right now, the M1 & M2 combo wipes the floor with the old Soviet armour we are most likely to face, while a cheaper combo, even if provided for in greater numbers & costing would end up taking noticable damage.

01-07-2005, 10:17 AM

Remember that the US public is a lot more sensitive to our casualty rates now than they used to be. A cheaper tank or aircraft might be more cost effective on the battlefield, but would result in higher losses on our sides, which the American people would find unacceptable, and would hurt moral in the Armed services. Right now, the M1 & M2 combo wipes the floor with the old Soviet armour we are most likely to face, while a cheaper combo, even if provided for in greater numbers & costing would end up taking noticable damage.

Pretty much what I was going to say. Certainly we could have cheaper weapons systems that would be on par with, say, the T-72 or T-80. But then, they'd be on par with those tanks and we'd take a lot more casualties. In WWII we were willing to put American boys in Ronson Burners without batting an eye. Watching some of the shows on the History Channel reguarding the Shermans makes me cringe...sending in 20 tanks and getting 2 or 3 back is not an optimal situation. I guess the US finally got tired of sending our boys (and now girls) out in complete crap and relying on our fighting spirit to see us through...or shear numbers.

Personally, I don't mind so much paying extra for better weapons if it means the people we put in them or that use them have a better chance of living. Of course, as my son is a Marine maybe I'm biased.

As to the OP, I think its pretty much been addressed. We haven't been willing to spend the money required to maintain cold war levels of our PERSONNEL in our armed forces, investing more heavily in technology instead. Its not really any one parties fault...the fault really lies with each of us who relaxed after the Soviets fell and wanted some of our money that was going into the military to come back to us or to be put into other things. Certainly the fault also lies in the current administration for underestimating the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq and overestimating our own capabilities and more importantly resources before committing us to two wars in the region...and stretching our military so far. So, in summary, there is enough fault to go around from this admistration (for the Iraq war) to the previous administrations (for cutting military budgets or not focusing more on manpower issues) to each and every one of us for letting it happen.

-XT

RickJay

01-07-2005, 12:18 PM

The Abraham had some trouble at the start didn't it ?
I've read that their engines keep guzzling even when they aren't moving... and therefore require horrendous amount of refueling.

Remember that the Sherman got things done... even if the individual tank commanders weren't too happy about the differences. The M-1 in a prolonged conflict might totally crash and fuck up without high levels of supply or maintenance. Small invasion aren't a good standard to say M-1's are perfect. They have naturally been improved over the years.
The Abrams (not Abraham; Abrams was a general) didn't replace the Sherman, it replaced the M-60 Patton.

Tanks simply do not last long without high levels of supply or maintenance. They never have, not since the Battle of Cambrai. The performance expectations are such on a tank that prolonged reliability and fuel consumption are simply not important capabilities. Tanks need to be powerful, fast, and as heavily armored as technology will allow, at the expense of niceties like long lasting engines or fuel efficiency. The trouble and expense of an elaborate and expensive maintenance and refueling operation to keep them going is simply part and parcel of having an armored force. If you're not willing or able to pay that price (as the Germans were not in WWII, they being geniunely dreadful at the logistical side of things) they you just won't have an effective tank force.

Some tanks may be worse than others, but the standards of longetivity and fuel consumption generally accepted for tanks would make a Lada look like a Honda Civic. It would be strange to criticize the Abrams for a characteristic that is common to all main battle tanks.

Furthermore, you don't really use tanks in a "prolonged conflict." Like anything else, a prolonged conflict will generally see the bulk of your tank fleet used in a major attack, then withdrawn, refitted, used again, etc., and so it has been since WWI.

xtisme:
In WWII we were willing to put American boys in Ronson Burners without batting an eye. Watching some of the shows on the History Channel reguarding the Shermans makes me cringe...sending in 20 tanks and getting 2 or 3 back is not an optimal situation.
We've beaten this issue to death in other threads, but the idea that the Sherman was a peice of crap is simply not true. It's true that the Sherman was outmatched in a straight up gunfight against, say, a Panther, but

1. There just weren't a lot of Panthers around. The U.S. (and British, and Canadian) armies were not fighting an enemy that had the luxury of a lot of tanks. The German army in western Europe was primarily an infantry and, to an amazing extent, horse-drawn army. The tanks they used had to be, by necessity, optimized to fight enemy infantry that used boots and horses to move around, not other tanks. Furthermore, the Allies were fighting in an operational environment where they enjoyed almost total air supremacy, enabling them to attack German armor with any one of thousands of fighter-bombers. The Sherman was an extremely flexible, multi-use tank in the context of the Allied combined arms scheme.

That doesn't change the fact that a Sherman in the sights of a Panther was in deep shit, but to reverse a famous comment, you go to war against the enemy you're actually fighting, not some magical fantasy enemy on a game board. The Germans were not, for the most part, a tank army.

2. The Shermans weren't nearly as bad as their reputation, which (as happens with this stuff) has been ridiculously exaggerated and simplified over time. It was a reliable vehicle, fast, with a very fast turret traverse time (the speed the turret/gun can rotate and elevate.) It was improved with subsequent redesigns.

3. As was also true of Soviet designs, Shermans were relatively easy to maintain and fix. The ability to keep tanks running and in the field is a major part of a tank's usefulness and it was something the Germans were really, really terrible at. During fairly large stretches of the war, the Wehrmacht's much-praised heavy tanks, like the Panther and Tiger, were often 60-80% out of commission because they were so difficult to fix and the Germans didn't plan for it. A tank that can't move or shoot is useless, no matter what its ideal state is.

4. Quantity has a quality all its own; the ratio of Shermans to Tigers and Panthers combined was 15 to 1, at least. It wasn't one sherman against one Tiger. It was five against one, or ten against one, which is a bigger advantage than even the raw numbers would suggest. Again, the Sherman crew just wasn't going to SEE many German heavy or medium tanks, but the numerical advantage allows tactical responses the Germans can't match.

That doesn't mean the Sherman was necessarily just a tradeoff for quantity though; after all the Allies in Western Europe had more of EVERYTHING. They had scads of artillery. They had so many planes that the German troops had a joke about it:

If you see white planes, they're American.
If you see black planes, they're British.
If you see no planes, they're German!

kanicbird

01-07-2005, 02:10 PM

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]The Iraq invasion force was supposed to be in and out, in, oh, weeks. Now it's a war of occupation and attrition, using essentially all the Army's combat capability. Got something to do with it.

In and out :confused: , don't know where you got that from, IIRC we are still in Japan and Germany from WW2. I never understood this to be in and out, or weeks, or even years for that matter.

As for the OP, I would suppose if push came to shove, all US forces could be recalled to protect the mainland, and if really something bad happens, like the Chinese, all one billion of them start over in their yunks torwds our coast tommorow we would have little option except that pesty "N" one.

rjung

01-07-2005, 02:17 PM

The Iraq invasion force was supposed to be in and out, in, oh, weeks.

In and out :confused: , don't know where you got that from

I'm pretty sure ElvisL1ves is getting that piece of nonsense straight from the horse's patootie: (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/15/world/main529569.shtml)
The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990," he said on an Infinity Radio call-in program. "Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that. It won't be a World War III."
--Donald Rumsfeld, Infinity Radio call in show, Nov. 15, 2002

ElvisL1ves

01-07-2005, 02:32 PM

Didn't even know I was being paged. Yep, that was the word from Rummy and the Cakewalk Gang.

kanicbird, if the Army can't even control a grubby-ass little place like Iraq, how much good are they going to do at home?

01-07-2005, 02:40 PM

We've beaten this issue to death in other threads, but the idea that the Sherman was a peice of crap is simply not true. It's true that the Sherman was outmatched in a straight up gunfight against, say, a Panther, but

Basing my opinion of the Sherman on several shows on the History Channel I've seen with veterans with tears in their eyes recounting just the example I used...sending a group of Shermans up a road and then getting very few back at the end of the day...or none. Or one show with a logistics and supply officer talking about the 'merrits' of the Sherman...namely that when one was hit, even though the crew was killed, they could be put back into service after cleaning them out of the guts and blood of the previous crew.

Now, how accurate all this was I'm not sure..I'm not expert on WWII. Perhaps such stories have been overblown.

1. There just weren't a lot of Panthers around. The U.S. (and British, and Canadian) armies were not fighting an enemy that had the luxury of a lot of tanks. The German army in western Europe was primarily an infantry and, to an amazing extent, horse-drawn army. The tanks they used had to be, by necessity, optimized to fight enemy infantry that used boots and horses to move around, not other tanks. Furthermore, the Allies were fighting in an operational environment where they enjoyed almost total air supremacy, enabling them to attack German armor with any one of thousands of fighter-bombers. The Sherman was an extremely flexible, multi-use tank in the context of the Allied combined arms scheme.

No, there were never a lot of any of the big German tanks about. I don't remember exactly, but they made tanks in the low thousands where we made Shermans in the 10's of thousands. They never managed to make all that many of the big ones...and if I'm recalling right the Panther A's had a lot of problems when they were initially deployed with their engines.

I'm not denying air superiority (which was crucial, especially tactical air superiority) nor the fact that the German troops were mainly infantry in Western Europe (most of their heavy armor being on the Eastern Front fighting the Russians)...nor the fact that the Sherman DID have its good points, mainly that it was incredibly reliable and we could make them by the dozen.

However, again at least from watching the History Channel, it wasn't the best tank we COULD have made...we were forced to rush it into production in vast numbers because its what we COULD build fast, seeing as how we had allowed our military to once again languish after WWI and hadn't put in the money to develop anything better. I remember seeing pictures once of a military excersize in the 30's by the US army where we used trucks with 'Tank' painted on the sides...and troops using wooden guns. Hows THAT for preparations?

2. The Shermans weren't nearly as bad as their reputation, which (as happens with this stuff) has been ridiculously exaggerated and simplified over time. It was a reliable vehicle, fast, with a very fast turret traverse time (the speed the turret/gun can rotate and elevate.) It was improved with subsequent redesigns.

Certainly it wasn't as bad as the worse critics say. It was certainly reliable and fast, easy to maintain in the field...and to put back into service after it was knocked out. And you are right...later they put a higher velocity gun on it and upgraded its armor (and the armor slope as well). It was still driven by gasoline of course, but so were other tanks. By the end of the war it was still not the best tank on the battle field, but it was certainly more effective in tank vs tank confrontations.

Again though, my point was that the US wasn't prepared before WWII and our service men had to make do with something that wasn't the best we, America, could give them. This has been the story of our nations military history from day one...we always forget that its important to maintain an effective military even in peace time, to do the best we can to train and equip our soldiers with the best we can give them in case we have to put them in harms way. I think WWII is a perfect example of the US once again failing to prepare...and the Sherman, reguardless of its many virtues, was still not the best we could have given our troops.

3. As was also true of Soviet designs, Shermans were relatively easy to maintain and fix. The ability to keep tanks running and in the field is a major part of a tank's usefulness and it was something the Germans were really, really terrible at. During fairly large stretches of the war, the Wehrmacht's much-praised heavy tanks, like the Panther and Tiger, were often 60-80% out of commission because they were so difficult to fix and the Germans didn't plan for it. A tank that can't move or shoot is useless, no matter what its ideal state is.

Certainly agree here. The Sherman was certainly much more reliable and easy to repair and maintain in the field than the German tanks. Much like the Soviet tanks in fact (from a reliability standpoint at least).

The irony of course is that the tank the Soviets started with, the T-34...much of the design (for the drive system, undercarrage and I think even the sloping armor) came from an American manufacture (Christy? Something like that)...because he couldn't sell it to the US army who wasn't interested in tank designs.

4. Quantity has a quality all its own; the ratio of Shermans to Tigers and Panthers combined was 15 to 1, at least. It wasn't one sherman against one Tiger. It was five against one, or ten against one, which is a bigger advantage than even the raw numbers would suggest. Again, the Sherman crew just wasn't going to SEE many German heavy or medium tanks, but the numerical advantage allows tactical responses the Germans can't match.

Oh, I know it. And thats how we won...but throwing masses of tanks at them in overwhelming numbers. I have no problem with that. My problem is, we didn't give our troops the best protection or weapons systems we COULD have...had we, as a nation, simply been willing to invest a little of our money in designing and developing such things BEFORE our back were to the wall and we were forced into yet another European conflict.

The Germans were in a no win situation by that time...no doubt. They brought it on themselves of course. That doesn't mean the US troops shouldn't have been equiped with the best possible weapons America could develop...not something thrown together in a hurry and rushed into production and deployed to the field.

Anyway, I've hijacked enough. Wish I had of seen some of those Sherman threads from the past. :)

-XT

Jake the Plumber

01-07-2005, 02:55 PM

Lissa... if you had a military budget that is ridiculously large would you care much about wasting some of it ?

Check out some military development programs... quite a few run into billions and don't have much to show for it. The internal squabbling and egos of course are a reason for so much waste and politics. Once retired the generals also get a neat and well paid consultant position with the same companies that make the weapon systems. Even canceled programs generate a lot of cash.

Its a lot of taxpayer money... for not so comparable results. The "waste" is greasing a system that demands more military budgets and contracts. Pure Pork Barrel. The companies make good profit, the politicians get pork barrel and jobs for their states and the generals get cozy arrangements. The only one to lose is the taxpayer. You.
Well stated. Fact of the matter is, we're falling behind other countries in developing new military hardware. Well, military hardware that actually matters. We have the gross screw up that is the F-22 leading the way, and the Stryker which is basically a quick knockoff of a Canadian vehicle (I forget the name) because someone somewhere realized that we will be fighting different kinds of wars in the future and the Humvee and Bradley aren't up to the job (Humvee being too lightly armored, Bradley being a piece of crap).

We're also heavily invested in things like stealth boats and laser defense systems (both against ICBMs and against other missiles - I saw one plan for a set of lasers mounted on a Humvee that would shoot incoming RPGs out of the sky, I want to see THAT work out in close quarters combat). I have no idea who they think we'll be going to war with any time soon. All of the people who are pissed at us either have equipment we gave them 20 years ago (Iran, Saudi Arabia), and the only people with comparable military technology are our allies. There's an off chance that Russia may start selling arms like the Su-37 and MiG 1.4, which would actually make the F-22 useful, but at this point, no one can afford those kinds of planes, and if they could, we would probably bomb the hell out of their runways before they could take off. Our European allies have long since started developing their own military technology. China doesn't even have a navy, and their air force is a joke. Brazil is an emerging leader, and North Korea isn't exactly cutting edge in military technology, and the rest of the world is basically stuck in a rut. Though from what I've read, the Israelis have been developing some pretty damn nice personal weaponry.

Can anyone remind me of the name of the Israeli assault rifle that has the barrel and lock pushed back into the stock of the weapon, making it effectively a carbine with full assault rifle power, excellent in close quarters combat, and made entirely of polymers. Light, durable, efficient. The new American assault rifles are more about fancy technology than battlefield endurance. It is a joke. American soldiers are going to cost so much money to deploy in 20 years that a larger group of insurgents will do very well against them.

Oh, and we're still investing in land mine development. :rolleyes:

Basic assumption is that everyone in the military over the rank of Colonel, along with their civilian counterparts, is a moron, and this exponentially increases when you get to the guys who decide where money goes to.

Amazing how the military stupidity displayed in Catch-22 and M*A*S*H 50/30 years ago is still valid and working today.

Brutus

01-07-2005, 04:55 PM

We have the gross screw up that is the F-22 leading the way...

Sure. Tell you what, when PRC attacks ROC and we are duking it out over the Straits of Taiwan, I'll bet the pilots of those Raptors will think otherwise. The F-15 and F-16 are old designs. Still outstanding, but against the latest French and Russian designs, their lead is diminished.

...and the Stryker which is basically a quick knockoff of a Canadian vehicle (I forget the name) because someone somewhere realized that we will be fighting different kinds of wars in the future and the Humvee and Bradley aren't up to the job (Humvee being too lightly armored, Bradley being a piece of crap).

No, the USMC uses the LAV series, which is based on the same vehicle that the Canucks use (Grizzly?). The Stryker is shiny new, and Canada is looking at buying it. And the troops over in Iraq love the Stryker. Works as advertised.

P.S. Please support your 'Bradley being a piece of crap' statement. Actual combat shows otherwise, but what do you base your claim on?

We're also heavily invested in things like stealth boats and laser defense systems (both against ICBMs and against other missiles - I saw one plan for a set of lasers mounted on a Humvee that would shoot incoming RPGs out of the sky, I want to see THAT work out in close quarters combat).

R&D. You don't get stuff like the F-117 or B2 without R&D, and the goofy 'Batship' and joint US/Israeli missle defense laser are R&D projects (though the Israelis are close to deploying the first laser in N.Israel).

Without R&D, we are back to clubs and rocks.

There's an off chance that Russia may start selling arms like the Su-37 and MiG 1.4, which would actually make the F-22 useful, but at this point, no one can afford those kinds of planes, and if they could, we would probably bomb the hell out of their runways before they could take off.

The Russians are already selling the Su-32 and other advanced Sukhoi designs to anyone with the cash to buy em. The French are tring to sell their Rafale all over the world. Hell, the Swedes are trying to sell the Griffon all over.

The goal of the Airforce isn't parity, it's supremacy. And that takes forward thinking and advanced aircraft.

[/quote]
Can anyone remind me of the name of the Israeli assault rifle that has the barrel and lock pushed back into the stock of the weapon, making it effectively a carbine with full assault rifle power, excellent in close quarters combat, and made entirely of polymers. Light, durable, efficient. The new American assault rifles are more about fancy technology than battlefield endurance. It is a joke. American soldiers are going to cost so much money to deploy in 20 years that a larger group of insurgents will do very well against them.
[/quote]

Tavor. And the US line of rifles, the M16/M4, is incredibly reliable, accurate, light, and effective. What 'fancy technology' are you going on about? Sure, most are contract made by FN (Belgians) or Diemaco (Canadians), but they are fine rifle. What about the 40 year old M16 design is a joke? Specifics, por favour. Or do you not have a damned clue what you are talking about?

Oh, and we're still investing in land mine development. :rolleyes:

Because they are incredibly cost effective?

Brutus

01-07-2005, 04:58 PM

No, the USMC uses the LAV series, which is based on the same vehicle that the Canucks use (Grizzly?)...

Coyote or LAVIII, not Grizzly.

Jake the Plumber

01-07-2005, 05:19 PM

Sure. Tell you what, when PRC attacks ROC and we are duking it out over the Straits of Taiwan, I'll bet the pilots of those Raptors will think otherwise. The F-15 and F-16 are old designs. Still outstanding, but against the latest French and Russian designs, their lead is diminished.
In the incredibly unlikely scenario of China actually entering into a shooting war with the United States over Taiwan, air superiority will be granted not by super-duper F-22s, but by destroying their air infrastructure. Dogfighting over the Straights of Taiwan is a pipedream, not a likely scenario - and it is also ironically the most likely scenario anyone can bring up.

No, the USMC uses the LAV series, which is based on the same vehicle that the Canucks use (Grizzly?). The Stryker is shiny new, and Canada is looking at buying it. And the troops over in Iraq love the Stryker. Works as advertised.
*shrugs* I haven't heard a peep about the Stryker in action one way or the other.

P.S. Please support your 'Bradley being a piece of crap' statement. Actual combat shows otherwise, but what do you base your claim on?
... that it is a piece of crap? How comfy would you be rumbling down the streets of Mosul in a Bradley?

R&D. You don't get stuff like the F-117 or B2 without R&D, and the goofy 'Batship' and joint US/Israeli missle defense laser are R&D projects (though the Israelis are close to deploying the first laser in N.Israel).

Without R&D, we are back to clubs and rocks.
Can you seriously state that the F-117 and B-2 programs have paid out their development and purchase costs?

The Russians are already selling the Su-32 and other advanced Sukhoi designs to anyone with the cash to buy em. The French are tring to sell their Rafale all over the world. Hell, the Swedes are trying to sell the Griffon all over.

The goal of the Airforce isn't parity, it's supremacy. And that takes forward thinking and advanced aircraft.
No one has the cash to buy 'em. The greatest threat to American air power are the stripped down versions of our older aircraft we gave to countries like Iran. Other than that, we pretty much guarantee air superiority by superior numbers and by demolishing enemy airfields and aircraft on the ground, not in dogfights.

Tavor. And the US line of rifles, the M16/M4, is incredibly reliable, accurate, light, and effective. What 'fancy technology' are you going on about? Sure, most are contract made by FN (Belgians) or Diemaco (Canadians), but they are fine rifle. What about the 40 year old M16 design is a joke? Specifics, por favour. Or do you not have a damned clue what you are talking about?
You've forgotten the OICW already?

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as40-e.htm

You should be well aware of the "super-soldier" concept where we're developing GPS blah-blah and soldier-mounted computers that coordinate blah-blah and target for flying drones with bombs blah-blah armored with exoskeleton reactive suits blah-blah?

Because they are incredibly cost effective?
Landmines?

Cost effective?

Erm, perhaps, depending on what your goal is...

I can see it now: future generations of everyone so happy and glad that America came to their country and deposited millions of landmines and cluster bombs and crap that'll be killing people 50 years from now.

We're fighting urban warfare here, not large scale armor movements. Land mines are a defensive measure from half a century ago. Their impact (not just limited to economics) is increadibly sharp, and entire regions are still recovering from the use of land mines. If your concept of "cost effective" is surrounding US military bases in Iraq with landmines... well then sure, yea, they're cheap. They're also (currently) blind, and while research is being made into figuring out a "safe" landmine, most of it is bunk, or restricted to self-destruct timers set for a few years. Woohoo progress.

Brutus

01-07-2005, 05:36 PM

In the incredibly unlikely scenario of China actually entering into a shooting war with the United States over Taiwan, air superiority will be granted not by super-duper F-22s, but by destroying their air infrastructure. Dogfighting over the Straights of Taiwan is a pipedream, not a likely scenario - and it is also ironically the most likely scenario anyone can bring up.

Right. Well,

*shrugs* I haven't heard a peep about the Stryker in action one way or the other.

Current events are your friend. If you want to tear into the stuff, at least keep up with the latest goings on.

... that it is a piece of crap? How comfy would you be rumbling down the streets of Mosul in a Bradley?

Let's try this again and see if you will actually answer me this time: Please support your 'Bradley being a piece of crap' statement. Actual combat shows otherwise, but what do you base your claim on?

Can you seriously state that the F-117 and B-2 programs have paid out their development and purchase costs?

Damn skippy. With those aircraft, we have capabilities that no other nation has.

No one has the cash to buy 'em. The greatest threat to American air power are the stripped down versions of our older aircraft we gave to countries like Iran. Other than that, we pretty much guarantee air superiority by superior numbers and by demolishing enemy airfields and aircraft on the ground, not in dogfights.

China and India already have new model Su-3x. Indonesia is in talks to buy buy them, as are a few other countries. And yes, airfield interdiction is the ideal way to achieve air superiority, but it would damned foolish to not have a plan B.

You've forgotten the OICW already?

You mean like the XM8 (the lower portion of the OICW), which will soon be entering field trials?

You should be well aware of the "super-soldier" concept where we're developing GPS blah-blah and soldier-mounted computers that coordinate blah-blah and target for flying drones with bombs blah-blah armored with exoskeleton reactive suits blah-blah?

Nice. Oog like his club, club effective, cheap and reliable. No need to research bow or pointy stick technology.

Landmines?

Yep. Not sexy, but they have their place.

We're fighting urban warfare here, not large scale armor movements. Land mines are a defensive measure from half a century ago.

Right. In Iraq we may now be in MOUT, but certainly you agree that it would be stupid to plan on refighting that and only that scenario?

Jake the Plumber

01-07-2005, 05:49 PM

Current events are your friend. If you want to tear into the stuff, at least keep up with the latest goings on.
I follow the action in Iraq pretty well. I just haven't heard of the Strykers making much of an impact.

Let's try this again and see if you will actually answer me this time: Please support your 'Bradley being a piece of crap' statement. Actual combat shows otherwise, but what do you base your claim on?
I'll repeat again: Is your choice vehicle for moving soldiers through hostile urban areas a Bradley?

Damn skippy. With those aircraft, we have capabilities that no other nation has.
Like?

China and India already have new model Su-3x. Indonesia is in talks to buy buy them, as are a few other countries. And yes, airfield interdiction is the ideal way to achieve air superiority, but it would damned foolish to not have a plan B.
Right, but the F-22 is a poor plan B.

Nice. Oog like his club, club effective, cheap and reliable. No need to research bow or pointy stick technology.
I notice that the Europeans seem to be developing their own weapons technology with significantly more ease and less money than we pour into our bloated defense industry.

Yep. Not sexy, but they have their place.
Not sexy? Land mines are to warfare what syphilis is to sex.

Right. In Iraq we may now be in MOUT, but certainly you agree that it would be stupid to plan on refighting that and only that scenario?
Of course, planning for only one kind of fight is a foolish move, but the amount invested currently into useless technology is astoundingly stupid.

Brutus

01-07-2005, 05:59 PM

I follow the action in Iraq pretty well. I just haven't heard of the Strykers making much of an impact.

Then you aren't following the news. (Not past a CNN or USAToday level, in any case.) A few seconds of googling turns up this (http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2004415.asp) and over at Army.mil they post occasional blurbs.

If you want to tear on the Stryker, do so with some actual facts, like those you will surely provide me to back your stupid 'Bradley is teh sux' claim.

I'll repeat again: Is your choice vehicle for moving soldiers through hostile urban areas a Bradley?

MOUT is to be fought on foot, with vehicle support.

And again I will ask, though you seem to be impervious to requests for 'facts' (though I bet if I asked for 'wild and unfounded speculation', I couldn't shut you up)

Please support your 'Bradley being a piece of crap' statement. Actual combat shows otherwise, but what do you base your claim on?

You made a damned specific claim. Now back it up.

I notice that the Europeans seem to be developing their own weapons technology with significantly more ease and less money than we pour into our bloated defense industry.

Heh, the OICW, that you so readily pan, is designed by Heckler and Koch. They are, as you may know, a German firm. And Germany is, the last time I checked, in Europe.

But I eagerly await your examples of 'Europeans...developing their own weapons technology with significantly more ease and less money'. That's quite a claim, and I am sure you actually have some facts to back it up.

Sam Stone

01-07-2005, 07:45 PM

There's an old saying, "The army always prepares to fight the last war". The civilian corrolary is, "The government always wants to fund the army based only on the threats that exist today."

We have prime examples of this kind of thinking in this thread. The notion that there are no large threats on the horizon is assinine in the extreme. Tell me who, in August of 2001, would have predicted that the U.S. military would be invading Afghanistan within two months and launch a major invasion of Iraq within two years?

In 1992, there were no threats to be seen anywhere. Fukayama wrote about the end of history. The Russians were our friends. Who needs the military?

In 1900, the world looked peaceful. It was hard to see any threats on the horizon. But within 50 years, there would be a communist revolution in Russia, two world wars, the start of a cold war, and war in Korea. Along with many other smaller wars and military actions.

Today, Russia is reverting back into something unpleasant. China is ascendant. India and Pakistan are nuclear powers, and unstable to boot. North Korea is a powerkeg. Iran is building nukes. France is trying to build the EU into a counterbalancing force against the U.S. The world looks a hell of a lot more dangerous now than it did ten years ago, or 100 years ago.

Also, the type of conflicts that could occur in the future require a LARGE armed force. The U.S. military should be thinking not just of fighting a two-front war, but a three-front war. It's not unfeasible to believe that if the U.S. is forced to fight Iran or North Korea, the other migght seize the opportunity to do something while U.S. forces are tied down. Give the large intertwining connections between many nations hostile to the U.S., you could see conflict springing up in numerous places at the same time. What if extremists in Pakistan see the U.S. tied up in Iran and seize the opportunity to overthrow Musharref and take control of Pakistan's nuclear weapons? When the world is unstable, conflict in one region often causes spillover conflicts elsewhere, and opportunistic conflicts in yet other places.

In an era when a new weapons system can take 20 years to develop, produce, and shake the bugs out of, to not be engaged in programs like the F-22, strategic missile defense, and advanced infantry systems would be incredibly short-sighted behaviour. Because if you only start developing such advanced systems when a threat materializes that requires them, you will not have a hope of catching up.

Rashak Mani

01-08-2005, 01:11 AM

I love these military tech discussions... :)

Well first I'll talk about US troops spread to thin. BTW very well remembered that the reserves aren't "reserves"... they were called and used from the beggining. The problem is long term occupations. Not only are reserves less "friendly" about these... but 150k soldiers are in Iraq now. That means the US has to have 150k other soldiers to replace them after a X long tour of duty in Iraq. Thats 300k soldiers only for Iraq. Add 10-15k in Afghanistan... and their 10-15k replacements. Then you have troops in Europe, S.Korea, Japan and dozens of countries. Then you need troops actually guarding the US... that adds up to an awful lot of troops. I call that spread thin... not in terms of US mainland security itself... but the reasonable and "fair" rotation of the troops.

I don't think the US needs to bolster to Cold War levels... I think they need to avoid stupid and counter-productive invasions like Iraq. They went in for a quickie fuck... and now they're stuck with a pregnant and volatile Iraq. Comparing terrorism threat to the USSR threat simply isn't reasonable in terms of needing similar troop numbers. Does anyone really think Al Qaeda and Co. are a similar threat to the USSR juggernaut ?

Rashak Mani

01-08-2005, 01:23 AM

Now back to the tech part...

The US defense budget is bloated and pork barrel full. Anyone disagrees ? Much more could be done with the same or less money... while education and other budgets need some boosting IMO to guarantee long term US economic health.

When I talked about Shermans... I didn't mean to say the US should drop M-1 Abrahams and buy T-72's. The US military shouldn't be cheap... but they certainly should focus better on what is really needed and get more cost effective weapon systems. They seem way to addicted to super high tech solutions that aren't necessarily practical or really needed. "Low-tech" and cheap things like the Predator were quite neglected until their usefullness was alarmingly obvious ! Procurement traditions in the Pentagon need some changing.

Also the quality of US troops in Iraq don't impress me at all... better pay or more training would help "peacekeeping" or avoiding civil affairs disasters.

Brutus

01-08-2005, 01:45 AM

Well first I'll talk about US troops spread to thin. BTW very well remembered that the reserves aren't "reserves"... they were called and used from the beggining. The problem is long term occupations. Not only are reserves less "friendly" about these... but 150k soldiers are in Iraq now. That means the US has to have 150k other soldiers to replace them after a X long tour of duty in Iraq. Thats 300k soldiers only for Iraq. Add 10-15k in Afghanistan... and their 10-15k replacements.

I think the ratio is even heavier, somthing along the lines of 3 units to keep one deployed: One deployed (to Iraq or whatever), one resting and replenishing and refitting, and the third training and getting ready to go.

The US defense budget is bloated and pork barrel full. Anyone disagrees ?

Nope. I've long been a proponent of getting rid of our ICBMs. There's a few billion. And certainly the procurement process can be revamped and made truly free-market. Things are getting better on that front, but slowly.

RickJay

01-08-2005, 01:57 AM

We have prime examples of this kind of thinking in this thread. The notion that there are no large threats on the horizon is assinine in the extreme. Tell me who, in August of 2001, would have predicted that the U.S. military would be invading Afghanistan within two months and launch a major invasion of Iraq within two years?
Of course,

1. It's important to note that while Afghanistan was a threat, Iraq wasn't. It's hard to blame planners for not preparing the armed services to fight an unnecessary war.

2. It's not as if the U.S. LOST the war. Iraq, such as it was, was defeated with ease. What's not working as well as was hoped is the occupation of the country, and again it's hard to fault planners for not anticipating that the U.S. would occupy a big country for a prolonger period of time against the wishes of the populace. In terms of just winning the war, the forces available did a famously good job.

This is not to say more troops aren't needed, but more troops could always be needed. You cannot perpetually be armed to meet every conceivable threat, and at present you're going to have trouble showing that the U.S. armed services is so small that the security of the U.S. is threatened. 9/11 was an intelligence, not an operational, failure. Iraq was swept aside and in any case was never a threat.

Also, the type of conflicts that could occur in the future require a LARGE armed force. The U.S. military should be thinking not just of fighting a two-front war, but a three-front war.
It ain't fronts. It's divisions. The U.S. still has substantial naval and airlift capabilities to move and supply a number of fronts; the current problem is that the supply of actual combat-ready divisions is simply too limited. The U.S. would be undermanned for a ONE front war if it was war against China or Russia.

But again, there's always a scenario that would overwhelm us. The U.S. has 10 regular army divisions. What do you think is the right number, Sam? 20? 30? If war were to break out against Iran, North Korea and in the Taiwan strait simultaneously, a 20-division army would not be sufficient.

edwino

01-08-2005, 02:13 AM

I have a few questions and a few points from one who knows next to nothing about the military.
Questions:
1) I've heard quite a bit about the defense budget basically being split into 3 among the main branches of the military. This leads to a gross overfunding of the Navy and the Air Force (wrt percentage of expenditure compared to other countries). I remember hearing a figure like our Naval expenditure is equivalent to the next 20 or 30 naval expenditures put together, mostly sunk into large carrier battle groups which no other country gets close to. I realize the necessity of a large navy and a long-range air force to project power, but do you think that we can readily justify this kind of expenditure when the Army and Marines are getting pretty beat down with the daily ground combat in Iraq and Afghanistan?
2) I think that the obvious next step if the US faces an opening of another front is a draft. It seems to be the only way to boost numbers to the levels necessary. Do you all see this as a likely possibility if the world situation (everything outside of Iraq + Afghanistan) takes a nosedive? What do you think will be the threshold for this.

Now some comments:
I understand R&D, but I think that Rashak is unfortunately right when he points out how bloated the defense industry has gotten. Large projects are now nearly uniformly absolute sinkholes for money. This has gotten much worse recently. I can see how the F-22 is a necessary idea, but the pragmatic point is that the amount of investment it has eaten up will almost never be worth it for an air superiorty role. I fear it will be mostly shelved like the B-1 (and face it, the B-2) because there are other systems in place (albeit old) that handle the job as effectively. Look at the evolution of the B-52. The only reason that Buffs are out there is that they carry electronics to help them deal with the existing threats. We don't need a supersonic or stealth bomber. I can see the F-15, F-16, and F-18 in a similar situation, and I wouldn't be shocked to see them still flying in 2030 with new electronics and other adaptations.

But really the case in point of this is missile defense. Yes, it is a necessary idea that should be pursued, but the rush to deliver a deployable system has meant that the trials are an absolute laughing stock. The thing doesn't appear to be able to hit the side of a barn, let alone a missile carrying MIRVs and decoys traveling through space at Mach 20. And it is costing us trillions.

I understand R&D. I am a researcher. But I am held accountable for my research; when I write grants they must have some interest and lots of scientific worth to merit continuance of funding. If I submit a grant with something parallel to the NMD test record, I won't expect my checks any time soon. There is an element of pragmatism here -- especially with the current world situation. Together with the inordinate divisions of defense funds, I believe that this area is stinking for reform. In concept, I agree with Rumsfeld's strive to reshape the military. In practice, his problem is he is depending on whiz-bang large projects which apparently have become nothing more than a never-ending, non-reviewed, no-strings-attached stream of paychecks to defense contractors.

JohnClay

01-08-2005, 02:39 AM

In WW2 the US was fighting against the Germans who had killed about 6 million Jews and who had killed many others during their invasions. And the Japanese were taking over islands and attacking the American military...
I thought Saddam had only killed about 40,000 Iraqis and gassed a group of about 1000 (Kurds?). I don't think it should be the same priority as WW2 as far as the numbers of troops we should send over there.

Sam Stone

01-08-2005, 12:12 PM

I thought Saddam had only killed about 40,000 Iraqis and gassed a group of about 1000 (Kurds?). I don't think it should be the same priority as WW2 as far as the numbers of troops we should send over there.

Where did you get those numbers from? You're off by orders of magnitude.

Iraq is littered with mass graves of Saddam's victims. Hundreds of thousands. Perhaps more than a million. Saddam killed over 180,000 Kurds, over 60,000 residents of Baghdad, over 60,000 Shiites in the 1991 rebellion, and those are just the big campaigns we know about. Saddam routinely 'disappeared' undesirables - hundreds of thousands of them at least. The current Iraqi government says Saddam's death toll was well over a million Iraqis.

And if you want to count the deaths from the two wars Saddam started, you can add another 1.2 million or so.

Brutus

01-08-2005, 03:55 PM

Rashak Mani

01-08-2005, 06:32 PM

Soon after my saying the US military is very professional this happens:
US nuclear sub runs aground (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/08/nuclear.submarine/index.html) :)

Rashak Mani

01-08-2005, 07:41 PM

How many people the Germans killed has nothing, nothing, to do with how many troops we sent over.
I think he meant to point out the magnitude of the threat... not the reasons for troop deployement.

If in fact its 3:1 to keep troops in Iraq I don't see how a "fair" cycling of troops can be attempted. Unless refitting and retraining are counted as defending the "homeland".

In the end a regular occupation requires numbers that don't seem practical or cost effective for the US.

Monocracy

01-08-2005, 07:42 PM

Where did you get those numbers from? You're off by orders of magnitude.

Iraq is littered with mass graves of Saddam's victims. Hundreds of thousands. Perhaps more than a million. Saddam killed over 180,000 Kurds, over 60,000 residents of Baghdad, over 60,000 Shiites in the 1991 rebellion, and those are just the big campaigns we know about. Saddam routinely 'disappeared' undesirables - hundreds of thousands of them at least. The current Iraqi government says Saddam's death toll was well over a million Iraqis.

And if you want to count the deaths from the two wars Saddam started, you can add another 1.2 million or so.
Cites?

Jake the Plumber

01-08-2005, 07:57 PM

Then you aren't following the news. (Not past a CNN or USAToday level, in any case.) A few seconds of googling turns up this (http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2004415.asp) and over at Army.mil they post occasional blurbs.

If you want to tear on the Stryker, do so with some actual facts, like those you will surely provide me to back your stupid 'Bradley is teh sux' claim.
I didn't tear on the Stryker, I said it wasn't in the news. It isn't, aside from military-specializing and US Army web pages. Let's see what your link says...

After four months in Iraq, the Stryker brigade up in northern Iraq lost its first Stryker armored vehicle to an RPG attack on March 28th. Two RPGs were fired at the vehicle and one got past the Slat Armor. The vehicle caught fire and was destroyed. None of the crew were hurt. Only the driver was aboard, and he got out. The rest of the crew (an infantry squad) were on foot patrol at the time. About half a dozen RPG rounds have previously been fired at the brigades 309 Strykers so far, most only causing minor damage. Two Strykers were damaged when hit by a roadside bomb.
Yea, that sounds like a rousing cry of battlefield efficiency. A half dozen RPGs fired at 306 vehicles in 4 months of combat duty. Yep, real front line performance for ya. I'm sure glad they're leading the charge by... doing nothing...

"Stryker Attack Used on Terrorist Recruiting Video (http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/articles/military_photos_20051523.asp)" (with video of a Stryker exploding)

The rest of the site seems to be general wargaming junk - military humor and games are a good chunk of it, and some reports snatched off AP or submitted by people, such as:

Military Passions
100% free online community site for military singles, and those that love them, offering photo personals, chat, email & forums.
Highly reliable and in-depth site that obviously is floating just underneath the mainstream media.

:rolleyes:

MOUT is to be fought on foot, with vehicle support.

And again I will ask, though you seem to be impervious to requests for 'facts' (though I bet if I asked for 'wild and unfounded speculation', I couldn't shut you up)

Please support your 'Bradley being a piece of crap' statement. Actual combat shows otherwise, but what do you base your claim on?

You made a damned specific claim. Now back it up.
*yawn*

OK, I'll follow your example and use a military fanboy website... only mine doesn't have advertisements for dating services and video games, and is written and edited by ex-generals and other ranking officials.

The M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting vehicle is a three million dollar version of the World War II Sherman tank, with room in the back for six guys. It weighs 30 tons, so its too heavy to be picked up by any helicopter and too large to be carried by a C-130, and is not truly amphibious. It's expensive to operate, expensive to maintain, and only carries six infantrymen. Worst of all, its a huge vehicle with little armor and packed with explosive TOW missiles.

The M2 Bradley is no better armored than a WW II Sherman tank

The idea of mechanized vehicles is to carry infantrymen behind tanks until they are needed. However, the US Army cannot field a vehicle to safely transport a dozen grunts, it must add every known gadget to field a golden "fighting vehicle". The M1A1 tank is a fighting vehicle, the Bradley is an exploding coffin. The Bradley is almost 10 feet tall, but can only carry six grunts who are trapped inside with explosive TOW missiles. During live fire tests of the Bradley, a hit usually ignited a stored TOW causing massive explosions.

The Bradley looks good in peacetime exercises, including the invasion of Iraq, but it will not do well with an enemy who shoots back. The Army has tried to counter criticism by putting extra armor on the upgraded Bradley's, but its still a huge target with little armor slope. Upgraded Bradleys are weighted down with external armor plates, but even these can be penetrated with light infantry anti-armor weapons. (http://www.g2mil.com/Bradley.htm)
You're really comfy with going into combat with these pieces of glory? Or is the impervious Stryker and its beautiful explosion better looking?

Heh, the OICW, that you so readily pan, is designed by Heckler and Koch. They are, as you may know, a German firm. And Germany is, the last time I checked, in Europe.
I am well aware of that. Now can you tell me who is contracting them to do it?

Oh, yea.

But I eagerly await your examples of 'Europeans...developing their own weapons technology with significantly more ease and less money'. That's quite a claim, and I am sure you actually have some facts to back it up.
I think I've quite fulfilled my factual background in this post. Dismantling 2 of your points is enough for before dinner. Maybe I'll come back and dismantle this one after.

Ah, screw it. I'll let Rand (http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1416/) do it.

Or "Fears of falling behind in this high-tech arms race are forcing European governments to think of ways to work more closely together, partly so as to get a bigger bang out of each euro. The Organization for Joint Armament Cooperation (OCCAR), a joint military procurement agency set up by France, Germany, Italy, and Britain in 1996, is already acting as the lead purchaser for some of the Continent's biggest military programs, such as the Airbus A400M military transport plane, the Tiger attack helicopter developed by EADS, and the Anglo-French Meteor air-to-air missile."

In general, the US spends 50% more on military research than Europe.

"The Americans were already outspending the Europeans before September 11 brought a huge boost in the Pentagon's budget. Compared with Europe, the U.S. spends four times as much on defense-related R&D--over $40 billion last year--and more than twice as much on military hardware."

Oh, I love this though

"It was one of the juiciest and most hotly contested defense contracts in Europe: the Polish Air Force's $3.5 billion order to replace its aging fleet of 75 Soviet-era MIG-21s. When Bethesda (Md.)-based Lockheed Martin Corp. walked away with the prize on Dec. 27, the European defense companies that vied for the deal--France's powerful Dassault Aviation and a joint venture of Britain's BAE Systems and Sweden's Saab--were left with a bitter taste in their mouths."

Sounds promising for the US, huh? Wait for it...

"The Europeans were particularly irked that Washington granted Warsaw $3.8 billion in soft loans to help finance the purchase of the F-16 fighter jets."

So we give them $3.8 BILLION in soft loans that will probably be forgiven to buy $3.4 billion worth of F-16s.

And all that is from an article that is written by Americans and is negative about the European defense industry (the same one that is designing the OICW for us, as you brought up before)

[fixed url --Gaudere]

Jake the Plumber

01-08-2005, 08:01 PM

Jake the Plumber

01-08-2005, 08:06 PM

Iraqi population: 25,374,691

So you're basicaly saying that Saddam killed 1 out of every 25 Iraqis?
Sorry, I didn't read the last of Sam's lines.

2.3 or so of every 25 Iraqis?

Brutus

01-08-2005, 09:12 PM

Yea, that sounds like a rousing cry of battlefield efficiency. A half dozen RPGs fired at 306 vehicles in 4 months of combat duty. Yep, real front line performance for ya. I'm sure glad they're leading the charge by... doing nothing...

Excellent. So now that we have established that you know less than nothing about the topic, let's see that awe-inspiring dismantling of the Bradley series that you probably researched the heck out of....

*yawn*

Hey, don't get tired on me now. You made the stupid claim, now get to work and get some factual data to back up your assertion!

OK, I'll follow your example and use a military fanboy website... only mine doesn't have advertisements for dating services and video games, and is written and edited by ex-generals and other ranking officials.

I pity the fool that is interested in military affairs, but is not familiar with Dunnigan/Nofi. Ah well.

Ex-generals? Ranking officials? Uh, you didn't actually read too much there, did you? Regardless, the good Captain (not 'General'), wrote this humorous plea to demobilize the army. (http://www.g2mil.com/demobilize.htm) In September, 2001. Not exactly prescient, that one. But let's see what he has to say:

The M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting vehicle is a three million dollar version of the World War II Sherman tank, with room in the back for six guys. It weighs 30 tons, so its too heavy to be picked up by any helicopter and too large to be carried by a C-130, and is not truly amphibious. It's expensive to operate, expensive to maintain, and only carries six infantrymen. Worst of all, its a huge vehicle with little armor and packed with explosive TOW missiles.

And so on. Simple ranting from that guy.

Too heavy? Well no shit. You want lots of armor and weapons, it's going to be heavy. You can do away with those, and issue duece-and-a-halfs (that might make you happy), but you aren't going to get a light and heavily armed and heavily armored. Can't happen.

Not 'truly amphibious'? Damn. That really hurt us when...oh ya, it hasn't. The latest Brit IFV doesn't seem to be bothered by being not-at-all amphibious. I suppose he will be happy only when we issue AAVP7s to the troops?

The M2 Bradley is no better armored than a WW II Sherman tank

Sure. You will now demonstrate how this alleged 'fact' has negatively impacted the employment of the M2 Bradley in combat. They have seen combat, you know. Scads of it. Certainly you can find some empirical evidence to back your claims, perhaps some real world examples of the Bradley being as terrible as you claim it is.

You're really comfy with going into combat with these pieces of glory? Or is the impervious Stryker and its beautiful explosion better looking?

Two of the damned finest IFV's the world has ever seen, with two different missions. While you are scampering around, looking for that elusive evidence to back your stupid claims, it will be no problem for you to point to two better alternatives for our troops. Any IFVs, one tracked, one wheeled, will do, and they must match or exceed the Bradley/Stryker team in every relevent aspect.

I am well aware of that. Now can you tell me who is contracting them to do it?

Yep. The US Army. Which is, as you ignored, going to be picking up the XM8 (lower portion of the OICW), shortly. By the way, you still haven't provided all those examples of superior European weapons develpment. And be quick about it.

I think I've quite fulfilled my factual background in this post. Dismantling 2 of your points is enough for before dinner. Maybe I'll come back and dismantle this one after.

You do not have facts on your side, but you do have clever barbs. Kudos!

"Fears of falling behind in this high-tech arms race are forcing European governments to think of ways to work more closely together, partly so as to get a bigger bang out of each euro. The Organization for Joint Armament Cooperation (OCCAR), a joint military procurement agency set up by France, Germany, Italy, and Britain in 1996, is already acting as the lead purchaser for some of the Continent's biggest military programs, such as the Airbus A400M military transport plane, the Tiger attack helicopter developed by EADS, and the Anglo-French Meteor air-to-air missile."

OK. The point of that is...

Psst, don't hoist the A400M program as an example of superior develpment. The Tiger ain't doing too hot, either, but the A400M....Then again, you probably don't have a clue what those are.

In general, the US spends 50% more on military research than Europe.

Excellent. No wonder we actually have a fully modernized, indeed, cutting-edge, military.

"The Americans were already outspending the Europeans before September 11 brought a huge boost in the Pentagon's budget. Compared with Europe, the U.S. spends four times as much on defense-related R&D--over $40 billion last year--and more than twice as much on military hardware."

Again, excellent, but this is relevant how?

"It was one of the juiciest and most hotly contested defense contracts in Europe: the Polish Air Force's $3.5 billion order to replace its aging fleet of 75 Soviet-era MIG-21s. When Bethesda (Md.)-based Lockheed Martin Corp. walked away with the prize on Dec. 27, the European defense companies that vied for the deal--France's powerful Dassault Aviation and a joint venture of Britain's BAE Systems and Sweden's Saab--were left with a bitter taste in their mouths."

Yay us!

"The Europeans were particularly irked that Washington granted Warsaw $3.8 billion in soft loans to help finance the purchase of the F-16 fighter jets."

So we give them $3.8 BILLION in soft loans that will probably be forgiven to buy $3.4 billion worth of F-16s.

Poor kid. Not too familiar with the world of defense spending, eh? Regardless, yay us! Check out the great deal Saab landed when it sold some Gripens to Thailand:

[URL=http://www.defesanet.com.br/fx/gripenchickens/]Link: (http://www.g2mil.com/Bradley.htm)

Thai officials said earlier this month the prime minister would try to arrange a chicken-for-jets swap during his Swedish visit.

Too bad we couldn't score some kind of 'Pierogi for Jets' deal, huh?

Or Brazils hunt for a new fighter: (http://www.clw.org/atop/newswire/nw081501.html)

Technology transfer is the magic word. "Companies should present trade compensation proposals, guaranteeing that the amounts to be paid by Brazil in the aircraft purchase will be reinvested, by those companies, in transferring technology that allows FAB to maintain the aircraft software on its own," says the Air Force Command.

I suppose you think it's like running to the supermarket for another box of Depends: Pay cash, get stuff. In the world of high-tech modern miliary aviation, that is hardly, if ever, the case.

JohnClay

01-10-2005, 09:59 AM

Warning: big post about deaths in Iraq...

And if you want to count the deaths from the two wars Saddam started, you can add another 1.2 million or so.
I thought the US encouraged Iraq in its fight against Iran. BTW, who are the 1.2 million you're talking about? Is that the number the Iraqis killed or the number of Iraqi's that Iraq's enemies killed? If it is the latter, then I don't think that Saddam intended to lose so many Iraqis during those wars.

Iraq is littered with mass graves of Saddam's victims. Hundreds of thousands. Perhaps more than a million. Saddam killed over 180,000 Kurds,
Ok, I was wrong about that....
Though http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/09/iraq-000918.htm
says: (info about his war crimes)
"1. The Iran-Iraq War. During the Iran-Iraq War, Saddam Hussein and his
forces used chemical weapons against Iran. According to official
Iranian sources, which we consider credible, approximately 5,000
Iranians were killed by chemical weapons between 1983 and 1988. "

"2. Halabja. In mid-March of 1988, Saddam Hussein and his cousin Ali
Hassan alMajid -- the infamous "Chemical Ali" -- ordered the dropping
of chemical weapons on the town of Halabja in northeastern Iraq. This
killed an estimated 5,000 civilians"

"3. The Anfal campaigns. Beginning in 1987 and accelerating in early
1988,....Human Rights Watch estimated that between 50,000 and 100,000 Kurds were killed"

"4. The invasion and occupation of Kuwait.....During the
occupation, Saddam Hussein's forces killed more than a thousand
Kuwaiti nationals, as well as many others from other nations."

"5. The suppression of the 1991 uprising. In March and April of 1991,
Saddam Hussein's forces killed somewhere between 30,000 and 60,000
Iraqis, most of them civilians."
But remember how US soldiers have killed those who have tried to uprise against the Iraqi government as well. (Though usually they'd only kill those who attack Iraqis/US and just imprison the others)

"6. The draining of the southern marshes" (no numbers)

"7. Ethnic cleansing of ethnic "Persians" from Iraq to Iran" (no numbers)

"8. Continuing unlawful killings of political opponents. The number of those killed unlawfully is difficult to estimate but must be well in excess of 10,000 since
Saddam Hussein officially seized power in 1980."

That was the kind of thing I was thinking about - I thought I heard a while ago that Saddam had killed about 40,000 dissidents.

over 60,000 residents of Baghdad, over 60,000 Shiites in the 1991 rebellion, and those are just the big campaigns we know about. Saddam routinely 'disappeared' undesirables - hundreds of thousands of them at least. The current Iraqi government says Saddam's death toll was well over a million Iraqis.
http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq1.html
on the other hand
"The international community's collective complicity in the UN sanctions regime that has been imposed on the Iraqi people, is yet another example of a war crime ignored by the current inquiry. The International Commission of Enquiry on Economic Sanctions, whose Co-President is former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, charges American, British and UN officials with "causing the deaths of more than 1,500,000 people including 750,000 children under five, and injury to the entire population of Iraq by genocidal sanctions."....."

"Such atrocities committed by Saddam occurred not to any meaningful Western indignation, but to Western consent, complicity, and active military support......For instance, U.S. Department of Commerce figures show that after the Halabja massacre, the U.S. was granting new licenses for arms technology exports at a rate more than 50 per cent greater than before Saddam�s gassing of the Kurds. ", etc.

Jake the Plumber

01-10-2005, 01:58 PM

Excellent. So now that we have established that you know less than nothing about the topic
Apparently, that is still more than you know.

Let's recap...

A half dozen RPGs fired at 306 vehicles in 4 months of combat duty.

A HALF DOZEN.

More than that, they are deployed to "northern Iraq", not the urban settings where most of the actual combat is taking place. The fact that 300 vehicles only had a half dozen RPGs fired at them in 4 months seems to support this, given that we see Humvees exploding almost daily.

Too heavy? Well no shit. You want lots of armor and weapons, it's going to be heavy. You can do away with those, and issue duece-and-a-halfs (that might make you happy), but you aren't going to get a light and heavily armed and heavily armored. Can't happen.
You seem to be missing something. Mainly, the point. The Bradley can't be deployed with any effieciency. It is heavy, clunky, and still manages to have crappy armor somehow.

Not 'truly amphibious'? Damn. That really hurt us when...oh ya, it hasn't. The latest Brit IFV doesn't seem to be bothered by being not-at-all amphibious. I suppose he will be happy only when we issue AAVP7s to the troops?
If amphibious was part of the original requirements set down, and the vehicle fails to meet the specs, one could say that it failed.

And surely, you, with all of your infinte military wisdom gained from military humor sites, must not be so shortsighted as to wave off a capability that can be as important as amphibious deployment.

Sure. You will now demonstrate how this alleged 'fact' has negatively impacted the employment of the M2 Bradley in combat. They have seen combat, you know. Scads of it. Certainly you can find some empirical evidence to back your claims, perhaps some real world examples of the Bradley being as terrible as you claim it is.
Hey, all I know is that the people who use it say it sucks. That's good enough for me.

At least they have actually seen combat, unlike the Strykers you love so much.

Yep. The US Army. Which is, as you ignored, going to be picking up the XM8 (lower portion of the OICW), shortly. By the way, you still haven't provided all those examples of superior European weapons develpment. And be quick about it.
In the same breath, you talk about the US contracting European designers and manufacturers to build the fundamental parts of our armory, and then ask for an example of how the Europeans are superior in weapon development. Wow.

Sorry I wasn't quick with this reply, I had a busy weekend.

You do not have facts on your side, but you do have clever barbs. Kudos!
I've posted more facts than you have. Nevertheless, thanks.

I suppose you think it's like running to the supermarket for another box of Depends: Pay cash, get stuff. In the world of high-tech modern miliary aviation, that is hardly, if ever, the case.
No need to get flustered and start with the petty, indirect taunting. Maybe you should spend more time finding examples of the Stryker actually doing something instead of spouting off every defense project and making little jabs at my apparent incontinence.

rjung

01-10-2005, 02:02 PM

I thought the US encouraged Iraq in its fight against Iran.
Yup. And vice-versa. Remember Iran-contra?

I won't try to defend the morality of playing "you two fight each other" with human lives at stake, but I suspect if anyone will, it'll probably be a Republican.

Jake the Plumber

01-10-2005, 02:16 PM

Yup. And vice-versa. Remember Iran-contra?

I won't try to defend the morality of playing "you two fight each other" with human lives at stake, but I suspect if anyone will, it'll probably be a Republican.
To quote one of the great lines from Hotel Rwanda, "you aren't even niggers, you're Africans", which I think sums up how they think about putting two countries into war for political gain.

01-10-2005, 03:26 PM

I have to admit, as far as the whole Bradley/US Military vs European military debate between Brutus and Jake the Plumber, that your points Jake are fairly laughable. You have yet to actually show anything resembling empirical evidence as to WHY the Bradley is a piece of shit, or even that its inferior in any way to other AFV's in its class. Surely you should be able to dig up ONE piece of empirical evidence against it?

As to the fact that the US spends more money on its military than Europe does, more on research and development, etc...well duh! Knock me over with a pillow. Apples to oranges to compare the spending by the US on its military vs what the Europeans spend. Such a difference in spending explains why the US actually HAS an effective military that can be deployed overseas and actually accomplish something? Put another way, if Europe has such an effective military why haven't they deployed some of it to, say, the Sudan? Obviously the US it tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan...but the slaughter goes on in North Africa. Where are the European militaries in shining white armor to save the day? Why did NATO rope the US into its adventure in Bosnia if the Europeans have such a kick ass military?

The sad fact is the Europeans have been riding our coat tails since the Soviets folded as far as from a military perspective. They have cashed in big time on the 'peace dividend' by gutting their militaries and slashing R&D. Now, that may be a smart thing for them to have done...its saved them tons of money so they can have all those fine social programs they have over there. But afaik its only recently they have started to seriously re-think and re-budget for increasing military spending in some of the European nations.

They are well behind the US both on the R&D and the actual deployment of weapons systems already in the pipeline, as well as training for their militaries. Certainly in some weapons systems some of the Europeans rival US deployed weapons (I'm thinking of the British and German main battle tanks and some of the French fighter jets)...that is their weapons systems are comparable to current generation of US weapons...in fact the French fighters might even be better than the currently deployed generation of US fighters (like the F-14, F15 and F-16's). The problem is that they don't have as many of them as the US does, they don't train like the US does, and they have no real way to GET them to distant battlefields the way the US does.

-XT

GomiBoy

01-10-2005, 03:36 PM

To quote one of the great lines from Hotel Rwanda, "you aren't even niggers, you're Africans", which I think sums up how they think about putting two countries into war for political gain.

I must see that movie. I watched a BBC documentary that had a really great bunch of info about the Canadian on-site commander who was there whilst the slaughter was ongoing...

Sorry for the hijack...

JohnClay

01-10-2005, 07:58 PM

.....Put another way, if Europe has such an effective military why haven't they deployed some of it to, say, the Sudan?.....
Apparently there has been a peace treaty in Sudan now. Also, maybe the Europe didn't want to send lots of soldiers to die in Sudan.

Brutus

01-10-2005, 08:09 PM

...and they have no real way to GET them to distant battlefields the way the US does.

That bears repeating. France and Great Britain are the only European nations with significant power-projection capability. Germany certainly has none to speak of. And the rest of Europe can't do much more than move light infantry (in very small amounts) to a combat zone and sustain them there without...American logicstic support. That is one of the reasons that the A400M project is so important to Europe, and why its shaky standing has some of the larger players eyeballing the C-17.

Rashak Mani

01-11-2005, 05:49 AM

I think its not lack of money that stops Europeans from having "expedicionary" capabilities... but political decisions/constraints. Peacekeeping in the past has always been with a very limited number of troops...

They might be rethinking it... but european defense budgets aren't that measly I think... its the US that overspends and badly. The US is trying to be dominant in way too many places and technologies... and that is a hard thing to do and eventually will be impossible once other countries increase even slightly their budgets.

As for the Stryker vs Bradley... the Bradley doesn't have to be a "tank"... but if he is priced like one... he certainly should be a bit better. I think the Stryker will be great for conventional war... but they seem a bit weak for the current situation in Iraq.

ElvisL1ves

01-11-2005, 08:17 AM

I suspect it's mostly that modern European military forces were designed for NATO operations, which for decades meant preparing to fight World War 3 against a Soviet tank invasion. If the war's right in your own country, you don't need long-range strategic airlift capability. The US military during the same period was designed to fight the same war, but that required getting a lot of men and materiel across the Atlantic in a hurry, and its airlift capability was developed accordingly.

Jake the Plumber

01-11-2005, 09:41 AM

I think its not lack of money that stops Europeans from having "expedicionary" capabilities... but political decisions/constraints. Peacekeeping in the past has always been with a very limited number of troops..

I suspect it's mostly that modern European military forces were designed for NATO operations, which for decades meant preparing to fight World War 3 against a Soviet tank invasion. If the war's right in your own country, you don't need long-range strategic airlift capability. The US military during the same period was designed to fight the same war, but that required getting a lot of men and materiel across the Atlantic in a hurry, and its airlift capability was developed accordingly.
Oooh, logic. Scary.

CarnalK

01-11-2005, 11:34 AM

So to stoke the militech debate, in the news today: Bradley detroyed by roadside bomb. CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/06/iraq.main/)

Brutus

01-11-2005, 11:52 AM

So to stoke the militech debate, in the news today: Bradley detroyed by roadside bomb. CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/06/iraq.main/)

We lost an Abrams not too long ago to a IED, and Israel lost a Merkava to an IED. Short of not being near an IED when it is detonated, I don't know of any defense against them. Even the specialized vehicles, like the Buffel and whatnot, don't do well against IEDs.

And that isn't to sound like a Bradley apologist or fanboy, but what IFV is better? Which IFV is better armored, faster, better armed, lighter, et cetera, than the Bradley series?

ElvisL1ves

01-11-2005, 11:55 AM

Yes indeed, how much armor and weaponry do you really need to protect you when you're trying to win the populace's hearts and minds?

01-11-2005, 11:55 AM

From the CNN cite by CarnalK

The blast flipped the 50,000-plus-pound Bradley Fighting Vehicle upside down and into a ditch, said Lt. Col. James Hutton, a 1st Cavalry spokesman. Rescue efforts were hampered by flames and secondary explosions, he said.

I don't see how this really tells us much of anything about the capabilities of the Bradley. A blast capable of flipping a 50,000+ pound vehicle over is quite a large blast. I doubt an M1-A2 could have survived that, though perhaps the crew would have lived in the more heavily armored MBT. The Bradley is a lighter armored vehicle...its certainly not meant to be invulnerable to something that powerful.

Besides, I think Jake the Plumber has fled the issue due to lack of anything resembling REAL evidence against the Bradley...just his gut feeling that its a over priced piece of shit. I say let it go.

-XT

01-11-2005, 11:59 AM

Yes indeed, how much armor and weaponry do you really need to protect you when you're trying to win the populace's hearts and minds?

From the same article:

Despite those attacks, Lt. Gen. Thomas F. Metz maintained the enemy is weaker and does not enjoy support among Iraqis.

"It is not a popular insurgency," Metz said. "The tools that they are using -- murder, torture, kidnapping indiscriminately children [and] women -- those are tools of someone who is not popularly supported."

Bolding mine.

Let me guess your response: "LIELIESLIES! These people are deluding themselves or just lieing!!". Close?

-XT

Rashak Mani

01-11-2005, 12:07 PM

"... those are tools of someone who is not popularly supported."

Like Bush ? He also resorted to violence to fix things. I wonder what this general thinks they would do if they were popularly supported ? Wait for elections while americans sponsor their own candidates ?

CarnalK

01-11-2005, 12:16 PM

Also interesting in the CNN article:

While acknowledging that "we have seen an ever increasing focus of the enemy on Iraqi security forces and an intimidation of or murder of senior leaders," Metz said most of the strikes in the past seven days have targeted U.S.-led coalition forces.

There have been an average of 70 attacks each day, and nearly 50 are against the coalition, he said.

So it seems the insurgents are intent on keeping the US forces "thin", not exclusively terror actions.

01-11-2005, 12:22 PM

Like Bush ? He also resorted to violence to fix things. I wonder what this general thinks they would do if they were popularly supported ? Wait for elections while americans sponsor their own candidates ?

So, you are saying that Bush's methods are like those used by the 'insurgents'? Interesting.

As for the rest, if it were popularly supported you'd see a lot more of the population up in arms...a lot more local support. You, as well as many others, seem to think that the current level of this insurgency is bad. Compared to how it would be if it had POPULAR support though its a cake walk. It doesn't take that many folks to make and plant roadside bombs, or to ambush patrols, or stage car bombings in busy markets....only a dedicated few.

With POPULAR support though they could go after the US bases in earnest, be a hell of a lot more disruptive than they are currently being, completely shut down the interrim government. You know, do all those things the VietCong used to do to us during that war. Stage not only raids but actual uprisings in all the major cities at once for instance, bring in DIVISIONS of troops to stage battles, engage in battalion or even company level engagements on a regular basis....things like that. That they aren't doing so, that they are resorting to terrorizing the populace instead to try and stall or completely crush the elections is a telling point...don't you think RM?

Perhaps the majority of Iraqi's ARE waiting for the elections to try and see how installing a new government peacefully works out for them. Or did that not occur to you?

-XT

CarnalK

01-11-2005, 12:41 PM

Compared to how it would be if it had POPULAR support though its a cake walk. It doesn't take that many folks to make and plant roadside bombs, or to ambush patrols, or stage car bombings in busy markets....only a dedicated few

That's a WAG isn't it? In the bit I quoted above you'll see there have been ~70 attacks per day over the last week, what's your estimate if it was popular?

But maybe that could get hashed out in the Legitimacy of the Iraq invasion/occupation vs. legitimacy of the insurgency (http://207.97.195.229/sdmb/showthread.php?t=296054) thread?

Rashak Mani

01-11-2005, 12:52 PM

01-11-2005, 01:37 PM

Sorry to be blunt... but you must think insurgents are stupid? "Engaging in Battalion level" for what ? Saddam's best revolutionary guards did that... and they certainly didn't get much out of it. Quite the contrary. Americans despite the idiocy of their president still have the best military in world, no ?

It worked for the VietCong. The disparity in force from a technological perspective isn't that different in the two situation. The difference of course is that there were a hell of a lot more VietCong (and regular NVA formations) than there are Iraqi insurgents. They had a lot more backing from the general population as well. Which was kind of the point I was trying to make. I think that if they COULD stage larger raids (perhaps not at the battalion level but company strength raids on our bases) they would.

Mao talked about Revolutions eventually growing to military units actions... but Iraq has been "revolting" only a year and a half. Plus the fact that there are so many factions and varied interests. Even if 25% of Iraqi men took up arms they wouldn't manage to get anything large going even if they could muster huge number of men due to lack of coordination and willingness to cooperate. Then they would get slaughtered anyway.

The difference, again, is that the insurgency is fragemented. There is no unified 'Iraq Insurgency(tm)'...there are a lot of little regional insurgents battling it out in their small sector of Iraq. BTW, if 10% of Iraqi men took up arms (there are something like 28 MILLION people in Iraq you know? Even discounting women and children thats a lot of potential soldiers) you'd have over a million men under arms...I'd say thats a pretty huge number. Even at 1% you'd have over a hundred thousand. Even THAT number would be a lot of effective soldiers....nearly as many as we have currently deployed to Iraq in fact.

As for the popularity its hard to determine... but the insurgents don't exist in a vacuum. Someone is sheltering them... covering them... many others aren't ratting on them. They do seem more "popular" than trigger happy GIs... and that isn't a good sign by itself. A "determined few" is all it takes apparently.

You have any evidence that they are more popular than 'trigger happy GI's' or are you just guessing there? That seems the popular image on this message board, but I've yet to see any real evidence one way or the other...just anecdotes from people over there and blogs, and some polls which go both ways.

As to the shelterning thing, its a point. I think it varies from group to group. Its pretty obvious that in Fallujah the tactic was to terrorize to populace into compliance through torture, execution and hostages. In some of the Sunni areas I have no doubt that the local insurgents or former Saddam loyalist types are being happily housed by a grateful populace. Since we are talking tribal factions you wouldn't get much 'ratting' out of these folks by their own people.

01-11-2005, 01:46 PM

Engaging in anything but small hit and run is lunacy. You must be assuming that if they want to kick out the US army that they should be doing much more... but I don't think you kick out the US army with military action... but by for example creating an intolerable security situatio. So by your criteria they sure are failing in driving out the US... but I think your criteria are off.

I've said before that the only goal these folks have in common is to break America's will to remain. They can certainly do this with 'small hit and run' type raids, but they better be prepared for the long haul. It wasn't until the VietCong really got active with Tet and other large scale things that the US citizens finally started really thinking the war couldn't be won. If the Iraqi insurgents are willing to wait for a decade (assuming you are right and the only reason they don't want to stage larger raids is because they are 'smart' and I'm just being stupid), then they also may have to contend with a stable Iraqi government by that time.

As for them driving out the US out...well, I dont see that happening except on this message board. Afaict the US resolve to stick it out hasn't begun to waver yet with the average citizen. Maybe you are seeing something I'm not though.

At any rate, I've listed why I don't think the fragemented insurgency has the general popular support of the Iraqi people. Maybe you could go into your explaination as to why you DO think it has that support instead?

-XT