That is a result of not having a well trained general staff that understands the characteristics of the US war machine-especially its ARMY as it is..

 

Our citizen army is not like either the Germans or the British in characteristics and yet that is who we naturally imitate: these days. (It used to be the French) In the last two decades we tended to add a veneer of Red Army to our staff planning because we became imitative of THEM..

 

Its not American. It hasn't been American in the Army, since the days of Emory Upton. Our Navy and Air Force have their OWN HISTORY to guide and teach them what works for us. The Army has its own history (Korea and Vietnam especially) but doesn't use that to train itsd officer corps as to what works and what doesn't.

 

One of the things the other services understand is BULLDOZERKRIEG, or burying the enemy under ordnance and material until he quits. The touchy feely Army we have NOW, doesn't understand why we used it in the past or why it worked. Iraq 2 was a clear demonstration that Shinsecki who called for bulldozerkrieg had a clue, but the incompetents running both the civilian and military side of the war overruled him and ran him out on a rail.

 

The Army officer corps didn't do due diligence or properly advise their civilian leadership.  

  

That is not an opinion. It is a FACT.

 

Herald

Confuses his opinion with incontrovertible fact.....

 

Bulldozerkrig was NOT what won our wars, or won them entirely and I don't think it was required in Iraq.  We did not simply bury our opponents in fire and material....and simply burying the Iraqi's wasn't going to end an insurgency.

 

I will say US generalship is always going to be a degree derivative, though everyone's is, because unlike France or Prussia or Russia, we don't have a large military history....

Hey there,

 

The main reason the m-2 has not been replaced is we have plenty of them and they do not see alot of action. we produced 50,000+ during WWII and even more during Korea and Veitnam, so the replacements were not able to replace the existing M-2 because it was not worn out in a high enough % of total units!!

 

Sincerely,

 

Keith

That may or may not be true...but since the 1970's there have been multiple attempts to replace the M-2.  Noe of them succeeded, or better put none of them were worth the price of disruption v. their advantages.  The M-312 is just one more example....again, mayhap what the US Army ought to be looking at, and it seems someone said they are, is one of the QCB versions of the M-2.  It's the M-2 without the head-space and timing issue, but none of the other bother and all the lovely M-2 goodness, apparently everyone loves.

Hey There,

The US military has been upgrading the m-2 as each new replacement came along. This reminds me of the upgraded M-60 verses the M1 tanks!!!!

 

Sincerely,

 

Keith

There is no question the US Army won WWII by normally utilizing firepower over maneuver.  There is however a very active school of thought that believes the use of firepower instead of maneuver normally will fail to destroy the enemy and that rapid and violent maneuver is actually the better response in most situations. 

 

There is also no question that most US Army formations utilized firepower because they were unable to properly utilize maneuver.  As now MG Daniel P Bolger wrote in "Death Ground" most US Army units were "cautious, slow, and unwilling to close for battle" and that normally units pulled back upon contact and called in fire allowing the enemy to withdraw.  The more highly trained troops, however, thought this a mistake and wanted the emphasis to be rapidly closing with and assaulting the enemy according to historian Eric Bergerud in his examinations of WWII and Vietnam.

 

The US Army seems to believe that today it's going to get so much accurate real time intell that it can see everything and call in fires with so much accuracy it's highly networked units can operate with far less actual force.  Moreover, by having such an accurate and timely picture of the battlespace the fewer actual forces will be able to manuever in a devastingly effective manner.  It's a tad unrealistic in that the enemy often determines the time and place of battle.  If he picks a city to defend all current evidence points to the need for more tanks, more infantry, more well protected infantry and engineer assault vehicles, and more armored engineer vehicles.  It's still your rifleman vs the enemies.

 

Frankly the US already showed an excellent ability to destroy an enemy that attempted to stand toe to toe in open terrain in GW1.  It's the fighting in built up areas and difficult terrain that is most problematic.  It's an enemy platoon in a village or difficult higher ground.

 

As a historical example one could point to the campaign for Monte Cassino which the US and Great Britain attempted to wage through firepower and inept manuever (inept being extremely kind) and was only won in the 4th battle when Juin showed that manuever in the mountains was not only possible but the key to success.  John Ellis has a rather interesting Text "Brute Force" which centers on the notion that the allies fought WWII rather badly by overly relying on firepower.

All those folks who like to talk about fire V. Maneuver and talk about the Second World War, also, IMO, ignore the strategic and tactical milieu the war was fought in...the MOUNTAINS of Italy and the BOCAGE of France, and then the Vosges MOUNTAINS, or in the Hurtgen FOREST.  None of those terrains lend themselves to maneuver...add to the fact that the Wehrmacht was on the defensive and then folks wonder why fire was used prodigiously? That's what broke the Wehrmacht, what maneuver can be posited in Italy or the opening stages of France 1944 that is going to replace massive amounts of fire, copiously applied to a DUG-IN Wehrmacht?

 

The US Army certainly could maneuver, when the Wehrmacht was stretched beyond endurance, June 1944 in Italy, August-Sept. 1944 in France, or in the Spring of 1945.  But until the Wehrmacht had been attrited, by fire and maneuver; maneuver wasn't possible.

 

I'm not sure the US was bad at urban combat...two Battalion-sized Task Forces took Aachen.

 

Also, also the US was crippled as were the British by a dearth of strength, making fire an absolute substitute and necessity for manpower.  Now, some of that was bad planning at he US Army/CONUS level, but some of it was just the reality of heavy combat.

That may or may not be true...but since the 1970's there have been multiple attempts to replace the M-2.  Noe of them succeeded, or better put none of them were worth the price of disruption v. their advantages.  The M-312 is just one more example....again, mayhap what the US Army ought to be looking at, and it seems someone said they are, is one of the QCB versions of the M-2.  It's the M-2 without the head-space and timing issue, but none of the other bother and all the lovely M-2 goodness, apparently everyone loves.

A misconception, and certainly not a fact. The fact is, United States Army never had enough troops by traditional standards. The United States Army has global commitments and as a result of the end of the Cold War, has had to do more with less, just like the other services. And just like the other services, it has relied on technology, integration with other services and allies and superior training to make up the difference. The United States Army amply demonstrated superiority over his opponent during operation Iraqi freedom. This includes insurgents thus far.

Also there is nothing touchy-feely about the soldiers in the Army. The United States Army understands that in order to win the conflict against an enemy that lives among a population is not to also make an enemy of the population. So discretion is used in the application of force for that reason. It has nothing to do with touchy-feely.  Think about this. The Soviets went into Afghanistan with many times more men under far less strict rules of engagement, yet they lost. Brute force is not the only way and sometimes it is the wrong way.

-DA