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
Sign In   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

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV  1 2 3
Horsesoldier    RE:The US force structure   6/12/2004 10:30:12 PM
>>Contractors do not drive hi-tech. Generals and admirals do. Contractors can make money selling oats for horses and shoveling the s*** it turns into << Yeah, but it is hard to get sh*t shoveling jobs that allow you to drive a Porsche and check the time on a Rolex. Lots more money in R&D and high tech than there is is oats and crap.
 
Quote    Reply

qwertyuiop    RE:The US force structure   12/6/2004 10:21:45 PM
i read somewhere that we could triple the size of our military without a draft just by raising troop levels and maybe issuing a few mroe waivers.
 
Quote    Reply

   RE:The US force structure   12/8/2004 11:42:24 AM
Hey qwertyuiop, It is true that the army looses alot of people due to standards such as medical or fitness to the tune of about 1/3 of recruits are turned down last I heard and I was one of them!!! Sincerely, Keith
 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F       12/29/2006 11:21:51 AM
I'm a bit confused how plans to quickly increase force sizes are supposed to work. Are we going to recruit volunteers at whatever the market value of a patriotic young man or woman's life is at the moment, transfer experienced commissioned and non-commissioned officers to those units from other units-presumably units with operational infantry experience, train new leadership to fill the gaps in the other units, then equip them (the easy part), train the new troops to the standard of other light infantry units in the US Army or Marine Corps (which is as high as - if not considerably higher than - historical elite units fielded by industrialized nations)? Or are we going to draft a bunch of kids, run give them some guns, run them through a couple of months of training, recruit some other kids, run them through several months of of training and call them "officers" and put them in charge, then feed the lot of them to the metaphorical cannons? Our present force structure relies on the fact that most of our troops are not new recruits. When new soldiers or marines are recruited they enter units that have already been organized, are already trained to a high level, and have experienced leadership. 
 
Quote    Reply

verong       7/2/2008 11:55:19 PM
Hey Jeff-f-f,
 
that is generally how it done but with casualty reducing methods you can expand faster with less dilution of experience.
 
Sincerely,
 
Keith
 
Quote    Reply

Patton       11/22/2010 11:27:28 AM
You have to remember that "modernization" is what led the U.S. Army to develop an "interim force."  The Old Army is called the "Legacy Force."  The ultimate modernization will be the OBJECTIVE FORCE.  So what you are seeing is a stop-gap of sorts, that is to say some of the capabilities that are expected to be employed in future wars.
 
Quote    Reply

Patton       11/22/2010 11:54:59 AM

Hey Carl D.,

I think the US Army may need more divisions over the next ten years depending on the Iraq situation, but I believe that this force could come from the National Guard rather than the Regular force, but it requires the training of additional divisions and equiping them which would cost about $20 billion plus about 50 billion over ten years that it will take to put Iraq back togeather.

Sincerely,

Keith

It wont happen.  First off, only eight infantry divisions are active: 1st I.D.,(M);  2nd I.D.;  3rd I.D.;  4th I.D.; 10th Mountain;  25th I.D.;  82nd airborne; and the 101st Airborne, (AA).  There is also an armored division, the 1st Cav.  But these are divisions in name only as they have beome UEx's with C4I over UA's, or brigade combat teams.  If anything, the Army will bring more battalions and brigades on-line.  Divisions are kind of a "thing -of-the-past."
 
Quote    Reply

Patton       11/29/2010 1:07:59 PM

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.

The Guard already has two (2) SFG's as well as armored units.  Cavalry is a misnomer.  The ACR is only an armored regiment perfoming a cav type mission.  The 1st ACD is "cavalry" in name only. It is a UEx level armored unit that may exercise C(3)I over neumerous UA's to include a CSB (ME).  There is no need for additional force to address your scenario.  If I might add though...the major nuclear threats in the world today are North Korea, Iran, and possibly Pakistan.  I would'nt worry much about a 9-11 type domestic nuclear incident.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy