Funny in another thread you were the one bitching about the general bored invading the football board. Now you are disagreeing with me saying the same damn thing in here.
Thanks for disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing like always.
Funny in another thread you were the one bitching about the general bored invading the football board. Now you are disagreeing with me saying the same damn thing in here.
Thanks for disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing like always.
I don't really buy a whole bunch of the interservice rivalry bullshit - in the real world, there should be one service: "U.S. Armed Forces." NO wait, that spells "USAF," er, "U.S. National Defense, " fuck, "USN..." maybe "U.S. Military Command..." Goddammit.
But seriously, we should copy the IDF model of force integration and keep the pretty banners and flags as unit insignia.
That being said, America's defense establishment is way bought and sold - which is why we are getting less lethal equipment at 5x the price than we used 20 years ago. BUT STEALTH! All bullshit. Modern militaries (i.e. Brazil on up) can beat stealth tech.
It's like the fucking AK74. Best infantry weapon in the world, but the Army spent ohmygod billlion on the M4, which is basically a tricked-out M16, which is just the fucking AR15. Ours has better muzzle velocity and more accuracy beyond 300m. Now ask any company commander how many of his guys can hit targets with any regularity beyond 300m. Ask him twice, because the first time he will lie to you.
There's a thing called "massed fire," which we used to effect a whole bunch in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Russkies are good at it too. And their weapon is cheap, can be dragged through mud and serviced by beet-farming illiterates, which makes it perfect. But ours is badass looking, so we've got that going for us.
Sometimes tech =/= lethal.
The real challenge is beating asymmetric threats, which we just got really good at in Iraq/Afghanistan.
This has to be a contender for "stupidest fucking comment ever made on this website." Way stupider than anything I ever said about grunge music.
PGOS - please to be explaining how the Navy and the AF were able to combat the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how the Navy and the AF provide a land-based deterrent in Korea. For that matter, what happens to the AF and the Navy when the Army goes away? Here's a clue: the Army provides logistical support to all services in deployed environments. The Army provides the water purification specialists and the cooks and the doctors and the medics (except for Marine corpsmen). But you can automate that shit, right?
Real_God knows that all those private contractors Rumsfeld hired worked out great, you know, on time and below budget and all that shit, right? Oh, EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE HAPPENED? Never mind.
Fact: At the end of the day, wars are won by boots on the ground. The Air Force is dominated by flyboys that want to be Top Gun, and the Navy clings to a belief that expensive carrier fleets are viable when ballistic missiles are cheap and so are the submarines that fire them.
Now, if you were just saying this to troll me - I compliment you.
Probably going unnoticed by Putin is the SECDEF calling for the Army to reduce end-strength to 420K from 490K over the objections of the Chief of Staff. Oh, and all that gear we have in Afghanistan? It has to leave either by truck through Pakistan (hardy har har), via very expensive airlift, or via train through Russia (hardy har har har).
The army, while not totally irrelevant, is still pretty fucking irrelevant. The Navy and AF are of far more importance, and I bet 99% of the shit the army does can be automated.
I see I've struck a nerve. I know you're current or former military, so I'll phrase the following nicely.
1) We shouldn't have been in Afghanistan anywhere near as long as we were, or in Iraq at all. The Iraqi military got trampled, yes, but the Taliban and other insurgents cost the US countless needlessly wasted lives, and billions in needlessly wasted cash. It's easy for the US to win a war against an overmatched foe in days; loitering around to get blown up by ied's, carbombs, and rpg's in urban areas is a much messier matter. You can't really "win" against the insurgents in a traditional sense. In order to do that, you have to Nuke the entire country, desert, mountain caves, cities, all of it. As long as Islam exists in its current form, organizations of radicals are going to cause problems and kill people.
2) Now that we've gotten the inefficient clusterfuck that was the Afghan occupation/Iraq war out of the way, let's discuss the significance of the army. The army is important, don't get me wrong. The US army and marines fucked up Saddam's Royal Guard in 2 battles with minimal causalities. You can't have a supply chain in hostile territory without the army. I get that.
The Navy and AF are just more important in the postmodern world, especially for America. America rules the world in a form of modern hegemony tied to its currency and military. In order for any aggressor to even reach American soil, it has to defeat both the US Navy and AirForce. The US Navy is bigger than the rest of the world's combined, and the AirForce is 10 years more advanced than its closest rivals.
"The only currently combat-ready fifth-generation fighter, the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, entered service with the U.S. Air Force in 2005.[2][3][4]"
Whenever America is gong to wage war on an enemy, it's naturally going to send the Navy and AirForce in first. The US planes alone will simultaneously sink the enemies navy/bomb the enemy country into submission/strategically strike enemy bases/defeat the enemy AirForce. Only once all that has been done, will the truly badass footsoldiers in the Special Forces/Marines come into combat, followed by the army and armored brigades. And even that is changing with the use of drones and automation in warfare...why risk American lives if robotic weaponry can accomplish the task? Soldiers are expensive to train and maintain; in the long run, a $10,000 drone strike on a fortified location is better than sending a marine squadron in worth millions in invested dollars. Granted, drones and automation don't always make things better and more efficient, but it's still only 2014. Things are only going to accelerate in that direction, by 2050 the US military will be unrecognizable compared to its current form.
Also, the Army's traditional logistical tasks are being given to PMC's.
TL, DR the Army is important, but significantly less so than the Navy and AirForce, and the gap is widening. That said, if hostile aliens invade and wipe the floor with the AirForce, it doesn't hurt to have a strong ground force...
Fuck, it's just not funny anymore. It's like revenge of the nerds around here. Goes to show 80% of you guys around here are fucking geeks. Post (oh I'm supposed to say 'poast' hee hee) something refreshing. Mora to the Seattle storm! Hardy har har. Fucking dweeb round here now. That's what happens when you invite too many dawgmen over. Close the fucking gates Derek
The real challenge is beating asymmetric threats, which we just got really good at in Iraq/Afghanistan.
Yep. Amen. I wrote a white paper at one of my professional education schools on this not too long after the surge describing how our execution of OEF/OIF were unprecedented in our military history. We transformed during war, and actually managed to get away from our war of posts, hard on for shock and awe, and cold war love of using a big armored fist and learned to deal effectively with the asymmetrical threat. And what did that? Boots on Ground. AC-130s, Carriers in the Gulf, and lots of hot Seamen are nice to have, but don't win you that fight. My thesis which the eggheads at Leavenworth agreed with is that those conflicts forced us to be flexible and learn on the go like never in history, and in fact, the deciding factor was the rifleman and training. A nice what goes around comes around lesson, and re-emphasized what we used to learn in the Army; something we got away from the first half of my career when we were in cold war posture.
I also largely agree with your view of force integration. It is a myth, despite decades of academic emphasis on Joint Operations. We still don't speak the same language, or use the same equipment. Boggles the mind.
This has to be a contender for "stupidest fucking comment ever made on this website." Way stupider than anything I ever said about grunge music.
PGOS - please to be explaining how the Navy and the AF were able to combat the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how the Navy and the AF provide a land-based deterrent in Korea. For that matter, what happens to the AF and the Navy when the Army goes away? Here's a clue: the Army provides logistical support to all services in deployed environments. The Army provides the water purification specialists and the cooks and the doctors and the medics (except for Marine corpsmen). But you can automate that shit, right?
Real_God knows that all those private contractors Rumsfeld hired worked out great, you know, on time and below budget and all that shit, right? Oh, EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE HAPPENED? Never mind.
Fact: At the end of the day, wars are won by boots on the ground. The Air Force is dominated by flyboys that want to be Top Gun, and the Navy clings to a belief that expensive carrier fleets are viable when ballistic missiles are cheap and so are the submarines that fire them.
Now, if you were just saying this to troll me - I compliment you.
Probably going unnoticed by Putin is the SECDEF calling for the Army to reduce end-strength to 420K from 490K over the objections of the Chief of Staff. Oh, and all that gear we have in Afghanistan? It has to leave either by truck through Pakistan (hardy har har), via very expensive airlift, or via train through Russia (hardy har har har).
The army, while not totally irrelevant, is still pretty fucking irrelevant. The Navy and AF are of far more importance, and I bet 99% of the shit the army does can be automated.
I see I've struck a nerve. I know you're current or former military, so I'll phrase the following nicely.
1) We shouldn't have been in Afghanistan anywhere near as long as we were, or in Iraq at all. The Iraqi military got trampled, yes, but the Taliban and other insurgents cost the US countless needlessly wasted lives, and billions in needlessly wasted cash. It's easy for the US to win a war against an overmatched foe in days; loitering around to get blown up by ied's, carbombs, and rpg's in urban areas is a much messier matter. You can't really "win" against the insurgents in a traditional sense. In order to do that, you have to Nuke the entire country, desert, mountain caves, cities, all of it. As long as Islam exists in its current form, organizations of radicals are going to cause problems and kill people.
2) Now that we've gotten the inefficient clusterfuck that was the Afghan occupation/Iraq war out of the way, let's discuss the significance of the army. The army is important, don't get me wrong. The US army and marines fucked up Saddam's Royal Guard in 2 battles with minimal causalities. You can't have a supply chain in hostile territory without the army. I get that.
The Navy and AF are just more important in the postmodern world, especially for America. America rules the world in a form of modern hegemony tied to its currency and military. In order for any aggressor to even reach American soil, it has to defeat both the US Navy and AirForce. The US Navy is bigger than the rest of the world's combined, and the AirForce is 10 years more advanced than its closest rivals.
"The only currently combat-ready fifth-generation fighter, the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, entered service with the U.S. Air Force in 2005.[2][3][4]"
Whenever America is gong to wage war on an enemy, it's naturally going to send the Navy and AirForce in first. The US planes alone will simultaneously sink the enemies navy/bomb the enemy country into submission/strategically strike enemy bases/defeat the enemy AirForce. Only once all that has been done, will the truly badass footsoldiers in the Special Forces/Marines come into combat, followed by the army and armored brigades. And even that is changing with the use of drones and automation in warfare...why risk American lives if robotic weaponry can accomplish the task? Soldiers are expensive to train and maintain; in the long run, a $10,000 drone strike on a fortified location is better than sending a marine squadron in worth millions in invested dollars. Granted, drones and automation don't always make things better and more efficient, but it's still only 2014. Things are only going to accelerate in that direction, by 2050 the US military will be unrecognizable compared to its current form.
Also, the Army's traditional logistical tasks are being given to PMC's.
TL, DR the Army is important, but significantly less so than the Navy and AirForce, and the gap is widening. That said, if hostile aliens invade and wipe the floor with the AirForce, it doesn't hurt to have a strong ground force...
Hi there, I'm an idiot. Signed PGOS.
You're the fucking idiot. The Taliban is still operating with help from the Paki govt and rich Saudi's.
The funny part, Koop, is that the Army actually was better at CI than the Corps. Pretty uniforms and tuff boot camp notwithstanding, our faggots learned to fight insurgency better than their tuff doodz. Something I will give the Army endless credit for is its ability to adapt to its circumstances better than the other services. I think its because we know that we are the fucktards of the military, so we aren't as attached to the hidebound rituals as much as the guys with the good ASVAB scores.
PGOS - the military budget isn't endless. When the DOD is spending $17 BN on a new carrier and cutting Army end strength to 420000, you have a big fucking problem with your priorities. The Air Force hit home runs with the A10, AC130 and the C27, yet has been fighting (and succeeding) at cancelling all three systems. The Marines are "damn the torpedoes full speed ahead" with the fucking Osprey, which crashes about as much as this bored. Yet the goddamn Chinook does the same task, has similar top-end speed, and is proven tech. But there's no money in tried and true. Eisenhower was right about the military-industrial complex. Some of our tech is badass and makes a real difference on the battlefield (drones, Warlock) but a great deal is just the result of retired generals with cushy consulting gigs at defense contracting firms.
And Tom Clancy novels. Members of Congress jack off to Tom Clancy novels.
The funny part, Koop, is that the Army actually was better at CI than the Corps. Pretty uniforms and tuff boot camp notwithstanding, our faggots learned to fight insurgency better than their tuff doodz. Something I will give the Army endless credit for is its ability to adapt to its circumstances better than the other services. I think its because we know that we are the fucktards of the military, so we aren't as attached to the hidebound rituals as much as the guys with the good ASVAB scores.
Agree. I guess anyone could say I have a bias, but like to be fair in my assessments on these things. I think you nailed a couple of key reasons, and that the scope of our mission is ridiculously huge. Shit, we have more sea going vessels than most of the navies of the world put together (LSV, LSU, Tugs, etc.) and the logistics mission by itself would make most Fortune 500 companies run away scared. That has always called for flexibility, and the tenet of individual action is actually the touchstone---not the mindless group think a lot of outsiders would be led to believe.
It really shocked me the first few times I went on a Navy or AF base---I was treated with a lot more reverence than my knuckleheads ever would have dreamt of. The Navy, especially is steeped in tradition, where the Captain of a vessel is Judge, Jury, God, and Daddy.
I respect the Marines, and have a couple of buddies that are Marines, but honestly, some of the biggest sheeple I've ever met in my life.
And the Army's fables are chock full of leaders making outside the box and irrational decisions that became rational in hindsight. Nobody ever became a legend by following regulation. Fucktards and proud.
I'm glad I decided to LEAVE this pointless argument early.
well, it started out fine but as usual there are a lot of logical arguments going on. I'm still not sure what the use of that is here.
Today's developments seemed to be Ukraine landed at an airport and the crowd knocked the cap off the officer. Not much of a war, which actually is good.
Comments
Funny in another thread you were the one bitching about the general bored invading the football board. Now you are disagreeing with me saying the same damn thing in here.
Thanks for disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing like always.
But seriously, we should copy the IDF model of force integration and keep the pretty banners and flags as unit insignia.
It's like the fucking AK74. Best infantry weapon in the world, but the Army spent ohmygod billlion on the M4, which is basically a tricked-out M16, which is just the fucking AR15. Ours has better muzzle velocity and more accuracy beyond 300m. Now ask any company commander how many of his guys can hit targets with any regularity beyond 300m. Ask him twice, because the first time he will lie to you.
There's a thing called "massed fire," which we used to effect a whole bunch in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Russkies are good at it too. And their weapon is cheap, can be dragged through mud and serviced by beet-farming illiterates, which makes it perfect. But ours is badass looking, so we've got that going for us.
Sometimes tech =/= lethal.
The real challenge is beating asymmetric threats, which we just got really good at in Iraq/Afghanistan.
I also largely agree with your view of force integration. It is a myth, despite decades of academic emphasis on Joint Operations. We still don't speak the same language, or use the same equipment. Boggles the mind.
The US also has a vast military budget to throw money at things like the M4.
And Tom Clancy novels. Members of Congress jack off to Tom Clancy novels.
It really shocked me the first few times I went on a Navy or AF base---I was treated with a lot more reverence than my knuckleheads ever would have dreamt of. The Navy, especially is steeped in tradition, where the Captain of a vessel is Judge, Jury, God, and Daddy.
I respect the Marines, and have a couple of buddies that are Marines, but honestly, some of the biggest sheeple I've ever met in my life.
And the Army's fables are chock full of leaders making outside the box and irrational decisions that became rational in hindsight. Nobody ever became a legend by following regulation. Fucktards and proud.
Today's developments seemed to be Ukraine landed at an airport and the crowd knocked the cap off the officer. Not much of a war, which actually is good.