Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Where are the Divsions? Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The US force structure
MikeG    12/21/2003 8:00:35 AM
Seems that most modern Army are limiting themselves to a few high quality units and reducing the numbers of everything else. The assumption seems to be that they will limit themselves to a 30 day conflict with other hi-tech advisaries. No one want to blow up the industrial infrastructure they've created. However, the war with ben laden and others is an old fashioned labor intensive struggle supported by hi-tech... not driven by it (to the dismay of the contractors). Countries are finding out that war is a labor intensive act. The US says it doesn't need heavy divisions, then something will happen that will require them, like GW1-2.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
   RE:The US force structure   12/21/2003 10:15:17 AM
Hey Mike, The Us military is think so far out it is missing the present threat. It believes it can handle the present problem with present force structure. It does not want to spend billions on the Army knowing that they may have to close the posts after wards. It would take less than 25 billion to raise 20 light infantry Division in a year if they wanted to, and they know it. Sincerely, Keith
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:The US force structure   1/31/2004 8:26:52 PM
>>The US says it doesn't need heavy divisions, then something will happen that will require them, like GW1-2 << When did the US say we didn't need heavy divisions? Rumsfeldian dreaming aside, the M1/M2 combo are slated to be in service until 2020, by which time who knows what warfare will look like.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:The US force structure   1/31/2004 8:27:28 PM
>>It would take less than 25 billion to raise 20 light infantry Division in a year if they wanted to, and they know it.<< Do they now?
 
Quote    Reply

   RE:The US force structure   2/1/2004 6:04:58 PM
Hey Horsesoldier, As many times as I have writen to the local congressman(Taylor 11th N.C. district) I should hope they know! Sincerely, Keith
 
Quote    Reply

surprisemove    RE:The US force structure   3/13/2004 5:20:04 AM
There is no way US DoD could RECRUIT 20 Light Divisions. Nor are they needed. The Napoleonic maxim of 'When the infanty is bad, field more artillery" still holds true. Not that the US infantry is bad, at least if the DoD will let soldiers serve more then 3 years in their units. The problem is that traditionally the US public handles casualties very badly, and casualties usually come from the infantry. Hence the US fields lots of artillery: conventional, armoured (called tanks), rotor equipped (called helicopter), wing equipped (called ground attack aircraft), high flying (called strategic bombers), and precision guided (called cruise missile). There are bigger artillery called strategic nuclear forces, but the US public is even more sensitive to these then to infantry losses...so they send in poor bloody infantry...hmmm...makes you think. Truth is, outside Europe, India and China, there are no challengers to the US force structure as it is now...so there is lots to stuff up by the politicans. Cheers
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:The US force structure   3/13/2004 7:02:51 AM
>>The problem is that traditionally the US public handles casualties very badly, and casualties usually come from the infantry.<< No, the American public handles casualties just fine. Vietnam is usually trotted out as proof of this "American's can't stand to shed their blood" argument -- 58,000 dead Americans and a decade of war prove we don't have the stomach for a fight? There was an anti-war movement, of course, but did they ever succeed in dictating policy to the elected leaders of this country? Can they charitably be said to have represented the majority of Americans? The American political leadership, not the public, are sensitive to casualties -- a phenomenon most typical among leaders who have never served a moment in uniform. This sensitivity was carried to its logical, emasculated endpoint by William Jefferson Clinton. >>Hence the US fields lots of artillery: conventional, armoured (called tanks), rotor equipped (called helicopter), wing equipped (called ground attack aircraft), high flying (called strategic bombers), and precision guided (called cruise missile).<< Hmmm . . . no. Pure-infantry tactics in almost all environments were demonstrated to be non-viable about ninety years ago. The best infantry in the world is going to lose to a mediocre combined arms team that can out maneuver and out fight them.
 
Quote    Reply

   RE:The US force structure   3/13/2004 9:35:58 AM
Hey Folks, My requirement for 210,000 Lite infantry(lite security divisions(LSD)) is to cordon off a city or area after a terrorist use of NBCR weapon which if you say a contaminated area of 10km in radii you would require 12 BN which is 2 LID not counting a mobile reserve and relief troops which brings you to about 5 LID's. In short the need for additional divisions is not a combat requirement but a guard the spot requirement. Sincerely, Keith
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:The US force structure   3/13/2004 10:42:26 AM
surprisemove wrote: "Hence the US fields lots of artillery: conventional, armoured (called tanks), rotor equipped (called helicopter), wing equipped (called ground attack aircraft), high flying (called strategic bombers), and precision guided (called cruise missile)." This is a fairly serious misunderstanding of the equipment being discussed and how it is doctrinally used. Tanks are not artillery, they are heavy cavalry. The purpose of a tank is not indirect fire, it is to manuever and defeat the enemy by shock effect. Now, if you look at the US plan in Iraq in 2003 you see them understanding this perfectly. 3ID was used as a cavalry force, they bypassed enemy static defenses and struck directly at the enemy's center of gravity, Baghdad. Helicopters are also not artillery. They are medium cavalry, and that is how the US uses them. Helicopter mounted infantry is analogous to mounted riflemen of the 19th century, and that is exactly how the US uses them also. Move the infantry to a strategic location, dismount and fight as infantry. Attack helicopters perform the medium cavalry mission, recon, screening, protect the flanks, deep strike. On the other hand, regardless of how the air force feels, I agree with you that CAS, strategic bombers and cruise missiles are just long range artillery.
 
Quote    Reply

Polar    RE:The US force structure/Terror Strike   3/25/2004 7:13:49 AM
Well, do you really think that such a strike is likely to happen? As I am informed correctly, use of fed troops in the homeland of USA is strictly VERBOTEN by your consitution/bill of rights. You could youse the national guard, but not the army. And spend 25 billion dollars a year for site conceilment? Use half for ACRs and Special Forces, half for Third World development funds and you don't have to seal off a nuked city.
 
Quote    Reply

   RE:The US force structure/Terror Strike   3/25/2004 10:18:13 AM
Hey Polar, the 20 billion is for initial training and new equipment after that the charge is about 2-3 billion yearly which is less than one precent of the US DOD budget yearly! Sincerely, Keith
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics