I’m a big fan of watching Discovery Channel shows which showcase our military capabilities. I’ve seen documentaries on our: stealth air forces, armored tank and artillery units, sniper capabilities and the like. It seems to me that being engaged with our military on the wrong end of the fight would be an absolute nightmare.
What I’m wondering is, are there any published accounts from soldiers or officer corps from the opposite sides that have actually confirmed that the experience that we think we’re giving our enemies on the battlefield is correct?
I’m in awe of the amount of investment we’ve placed in the technology and training that we’ve given our troops to both help them accomplish the mission and bring them home safe. I just wonder if the expectations that we have on what these new toys and tactics have actually played out.
I’m posting this in GQ bc I’m honestly looking for the answer to my question. I’m not interested in a debate on whether these investments in military improvements are warranted.
It would be great to get these accounts from the receivers of our bullets up through time/conflicts but I’ll take what I can get. I’m most interested in the most current accounts.
If exercises count, I’ve gone up against the Navy. The scenario had Navy F-18s defending against an incoming strike force with fighter cover. I was in the backseat of an F-4 for this little fiasco. Our plan was to have our fighters go engage the F-18s while the strikers went in low from another direction. We’d win if we could overfly the target before being “killed”.
Didn’t work out so well. Our fighters were from a different squadron, and they got their asses kicked in short order, leaving us vulnerable. Only one of the strikers managed to reach the target. I saw the HUD tape from the guy that claimed the kill on my F-4. Put his gun sight right on my helmet when he called the kill. Ouch.
I once read a quote from a German officer who said he’d fought the Russians, and also the Americans; and fighting the Americans had been like being on leave.
Since Korea, the US has been obsessed with the idiotic concept of “fighting fair”-an idea that makes NO sense at all.
WE have the most advanced weaponry in the world, but we wind up fighting on the enemy’s terms, because we want to avoid civilian casualties.
A classic case of this was in our ill-fated Somalia “mission”-where guerillas attacking US troops fired at us from behind women. The Somalis knew that our troops wanted to avoid killing civilians, so they used their own women as human shields.
This is why we (ultimately) manage to lose these wars, and (simltaneously) get contempt from our enemies-Bin Laden knew that all he had to do was to cause US forces to blow up some mosque, and then he would proclaim the barabarism of the US forces.
We emerge from these conflicts bankrupt, broken, with bitter veterans and the ill-will of those we invaded.
I would suggest that we practice total war instead-ruthless destruction of all who attack our forces.
Would such actions earn us the (well deserved) censure of the world? Yes.
Would it result in vistory -Yes.
We simply have to decide whether such “victories” are worth it
OTOH, I have read memoirs that stated that it was hell fighting Americans in that war because of the apparently endless artillery barrages they could call down and the limitless amounts of small arms ammo they were willing to expend.
Fighting the modern US Military is man against machine. The opposition has to be in a “ready to die” state while committing as much mayhem as possible.
Since the Vietnam War (58,000 US killed) the politicians decided that in a localized war the US public would not tolerate casualties on that scale. Sophisticated armaments and tactics were devised to kill as many of the enemy as possible with as few US casualties as possible. That doesn’t guarantee a win but it makes the action much more palatable to the public. The 1st Gulf War, minimal casualties. Kosovo, no casualties. When 18 died in Somalia, Clinton’s political opponents accused him of being incompetent. The second Gulf War got ugly politically when hundreds started to die.
So the mindset of the opposition is that they are willing to fight knowing that they are fighting technology and cannot win the body count portion of the contest. They’re purpose isn’t to kill more Americans, it is to make it not worth the time and money of the US to continue to fight.
Good observations-we allow ourselves to be drawn into wars, and fight in such a way as to nullify the advantages of our hightech weaponry. What good are cruise missiles, drones, and armored vehicles in fighting Afghan tribesmen?
It is currently costing us in excess of $16,000,000 to kill each enemy combatant in Afghanistan-why don’t we simply buy them off (like the British, after their disastrous foray into Afghanistan, in the 1880’s)?
As per the OP, let’s not turn this into a debate about whether the investments are warranted. ralph124c, your posts are particularly non-responsive to the subject stated by the OP. If you want to debate these aspects of the subject, start a new thread in GD.
As a reminder, here is the basic question in the OP. Responses should be related to this topic:
[QUOTE=JCorre]
What I’m wondering is, are there any published accounts from soldiers or officer corps from the opposite sides that have actually confirmed that the experience that we think we’re giving our enemies on the battlefield is correct?
[/QUOTE]
When I was younger, I had the opportunity to talk to a few people who fought against the United States.
One was an old German who imiigrated to the U.S. after the war. As one poster said above, he said it was like being on leave after fighting the Russians. The impression I got from him was like a pro american-football player once said during an interview…
“You can be beat 47-10 by a technically good team that passes alot and not feel beaten…but you can lose 10-7 against a physical team that runs alot and feel like you have been beaten down into a pulp.”
That was the impression I got from that old German. However, that was WWII.
I also was able to talk to a Vietnamese (spelling?) who’s father fought for the NVA in the Vietnam war. His father came to visit (the son was one of my students) and we were able to talk for a bit. When he saw I was nonjudgmental, he opened up some. Turns out he actually was an officer and so actually commanded some units.
He said it was…frustrating. Basically, when you get the Americans back on their heels they many times could come up with large amounts of firepower. It was also painstaking to move…always had to be careful. His face showed some emotion at his mentioning artillery. So he said that to describe it in one word would be ‘frustrating’.
I get the feeling you don’t really feel ‘full court pressed’ like you would against the Russians in WWII…but that fighting Americans it is hard to engage them in a stand up fight/toe to toe. The technology of the U.S. millitary is like a shield that is hard to get around.
My buddy flew those huge transport choppers during Operation Desert Storm. He had a load of prisoners once, and was talking to one who had been educated in the USA. The Republican Guard said it was like being in a video game- on the wrong side.
I’m surprised that the prisoners are allowed to hold conversations with military personnel.
Do you thing the POW would be exaggerating to impress his captors?
Not trying to get into a political argument with you over Clinton, but the fact was that the whole US policy in Somalia was incompetent and since he was our leader he was incompetent by default. The problem we have in places like Somalia is that we go in under UN control and our hands are tied. We come up with rules of engagement that states we can take no action unless fired upon. What the hell kind of way is that to run a military deployment? We have the finest military in the world, they are capable of destroying any nation or army it is up against. The problem is instead of letting the military kill people and destroy things like it is supposed to the politicians tie one of their hands behind their backs.
If we are going to commit our troops and expose them to danger, then we best get the hell out of the way and let them do what is necessary to get the job done. Like your example in Somalia, those we were fighting had no problem using “civilians” as shields and those civilians had no problem being shields. If that is the case then they become targets. It is harsh, but the alternative is dead American soldiers.
From what he told me, these guys were supposedly ‘friendlies’ who had volunteered to inform on their side. This was after the shooting war had ended. Of course, the dude could have been lying his ass off to make points, but a transport pilot isn’t going to help you much there.
Still sounds strange to me. I’d think that the intelligence people would really want to talk to this guy, and not want him to talk to anyone else.
Is the inside of a transport helicopter like TV, where it is so noisy that you need microphones and headphones to converse?