What Can We Do To Fix The US Army?

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: What Can We Do To Fix The US Army?
Softwar 2/13/2009 3:50:26 PM

Besides spares and maint. - Let's go with aviation equipment for starters - the Army needs a replacement for the remaining UH-1 choppers, a new light observation chopper to replace aging Kiowas, upgrades to the AH-64 force, and a new series of heavy lift choppers (or more Chinooks) to maintain air mobile levels. Now armor - we need to upgrade the Stryker and add more to replace low armored HUMVEEs in front line service. Ground transport - better armored trucks seem to be in order here. Artillery - can someone please finallly pick a SP 155 platform that makes sense?? Infantry - we have the M-4 procurement to complete and Geeezzz Louise... replace the 9 MM pistol with the 1911. Buy more 50 cals. Improve local intell - small UAVs, trained translators and handlers instead of tearing around town trying to be nasty. ID systems for both captured enemy as well as friendly forces. Training and logistical support - develop and deploy small unit tactics - these were very ineffective especially in urban environments. A NTC for small unit and urban warfare is in order here. Make use of combat experience vets instead of simply letting them wander off. We did that in WII and Korea - it works and saves lives. Instead, we muster them out after being assured they will not go bezerk and pop a cap in someone. Leadership!!! The patrol and plaster tactics used during OIF took too many casualties and left guys with their butts hanging out without proper communications, air support or control. Officers were slow to utilize unmanned/robot systems - instead they opted to bust down doors with the old bad-ass entry and shoot 'em up. Top brass are more interested in micro managing unit activity than trying to supply them with the tools and turning them loose.

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 NEXT

DarthAmerica 2/18/2009 10:47:38 AM

Man - I sturred up a hornet's nest.

Some explaination on a couple of topics -

The 9mm vs. .45 debate has raged for years. The overall effectiveness of the 9mm is nice but no where near the .45 in action. While JFKY claims that it requires more training - perhaps to shoot a larger caliber - it seemed to have served over a million soldiers without causing much of a disturbance in the force. The .45 is easy enough to use, field, strip and keep in operation even under horrible conditions. The SF folks swear by them and have modified the 1911 with a built laser in the handle for low light targeting - a very nice feature.

This is complete and utter nonsense. It is a myth that .45 is a significantly more effective round. It does make larger holes, but unless that hole is through the central nervous system, critical skeletal structure or the heart. The difference in target effects is marginal at best. In order to be deadly, a pistol shooter must be trained far beyond what is necessary for a typical soldier. Also, the M1911 is definitely more difficult to maintain and certainly more difficult to train with. I am a user, not an enthusiast, but a user of both calibers for actual self defense and combat and have used both rounds in anger against living HUMAN targets and am a private pistol instructor. Built is lasers are hollywood gimmicks. The sights on the weapon are by far faster to put on target. About the only benefit of the laser is in escalation of force situations ie intimidation. SF personnel do not swear by any particular caliber. It's all preference and people who use these weapons see them only as tools.

The main element is overall stopping power - the high velocity 9mm goes through its target. The .45 at 800 feet per second - terminates within the target - giving up all its energy. The repeated demonstrations of damage caused by the slower slug/larger caliber vs. punching a hole through someone with the 2600 ft/sec 9mm is enough to convince. While it is my opinion only - I have shot both and found little difference except at longer ranges - something not really valid in actual combat. The .45 should be re-introduced and eventually replace the 9mm.

Again, more complete misunderstanding and hollywood nonsense. A pistol does not have "stopping power". I've seen people hit with very larger caliber rounds up to and including cannon fire and it does not always "stop" a man. In order to stop a person, you must strike the central nervous system. You can also destroy the heart or destroy a major part of the skeleton however these hits are not always immediately incapacitating. Also, the .45 ACP does not always terminate in its target. Especially not when using ball ammunition. But to dispel this idea of bullet stopping power, Im going to suggest something. The next time you want to "knockdown" an opponent, don't shoot him. Simply walk up and punch! Thats right. There is more KE in the average mans punch than a bullet and it's only in Hollywood that you see men flying back from punches....

http://www.kolumbus.fi/Luodes/Rocky2.JPG" width="584" height="996" alt="" />

...The main element is not "stopping power". It's shot placement. 9mm works just fine.

-DA

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica Softwar Reply 2/18/2009 11:01:36 AM

By "complete and utter nonsense" or when I say, "Hollywood" I am referring to your suggestions about bullet effectiveness, laser sight effectiveness and stopping power from the point of view of an operator/user and not in any way trying to insult you personally. I just want you and others to be aware of that so as not to start any flaming. The vigor in with which I make my case is only because I've had to deal with these misconceptions professionally and even personally when I have shot men only to find that my preconceived ideas were in fact false.

Regards

-DA

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica Softwar Reply 2/18/2009 11:13:45 AM

Regards

-DA

(9mm)

h*tp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntnfRFKnxz4&feature=channel

(.45 ACP recovered from a man I shot in CONUS. Note the HP ammo which hit dead center in the chest just next to the heart. The man ran 50 meters before succumbing to blood loss.)

http://media6.dropshots.com/photos/424937/20040101/000000.jpg" width="300" height="225" alt="" />

I used to prefer .45 ACP actually. Before I experienced the myth!

(HK USP .45 ACP)

h*tp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzgKhZ-j6sM&feature=channel

I'll show you what we use for lil Urban "NTC" when I get more time to upload.

-DA

Quote Reply

Softwar 2/18/2009 11:55:49 AM

Regards

-DA

Points well made and no offense taken.

Just I wonder why the SF guys use the .45 and not the 9mm - they swear by them?

Quote Reply

YelliChink 2/18/2009 12:10:30 PM

Points well made and no offense taken.

Just I wonder why the SF guys use the .45 and not the 9mm - they swear by them?

There are a few reasons why some SF use .45ACP.

1. .45ACP has subsonic projectile, which is best suited for suppressed firearms. Standard 9mm load is supersonic.

2. .45ACP opens larger holes, and hence has higher chance to knock down central nerve system and increase blood loss.

3. Myth about stopping power in late '80s through out '90s.

Some police forces use JHP or other expanding projectiles, which makes .45ACP very lethal. However, those kind of ammo aren't suited for military use due to various legal and logistic reasons.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 2/18/2009 12:18:29 PM

Regards

-DA

Points well made and no offense taken.

Just I wonder why the SF guys use the .45 and not the 9mm - they swear by them?

The short answer... preference. And not across the board. You will find many who don't care, many who prefer 9mm and A LOT MORE who don't really know much about pistols at all. Unfortunately, just like jets, pistols have huge internet fanboy following. As in people who have NEVER and WILL NEVER use these weapons in anger. They have read all the various magazines and internet sites proclaiming the .45 to be the best round ever but with no realistic idea of what they are speaking about.

I do not deny that the .45 makes a bigger hole, but if that hole isn't in the central nervous system, thru the heart or destroy critical parts of the skeleton, then all you get is the potential for marginally more bloodloss which in all likelihood, it happened to me, will not immediately incapacitate/kill and certainly not "knock" a man down. In fact bullets cannot knock a man down. People fall down because of panic, damage to the critical areas I described earlier or from tripping and falling. But not due to the KE of the bullet. The physics don't work.

ht**p://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaS_2l8nGdg&feature=related

-DA

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 2/18/2009 12:29:52 PM

There are a few reasons why some SF use .45ACP.

Mostly all invalid.

1. .45ACP has subsonic projectile, which is best suited for suppressed firearms. Standard 9mm load is supersonic.

Depends, there are plenty of subsonic 9mm loads especially in 147 gr. You know the funny thing about all the stopping power and over penetration freaks out there? They don't know physics. If they did, they would realize that it takes a lot more to stop a heavier projectile traveling through a mass than it does a lighter one. Also, the lighter bullets tend to "fragment" on impact with things such as bone at higher velocity.

2. .45ACP opens larger holes, and hence has higher chance to knock down central nerve system and increase blood loss.

Not really. We are talking about low single digit increase in percentage chance.

3. Myth about stopping power in late '80s through out '90s.

Agreed.

Some police forces use JHP or other expanding projectiles, which makes .45ACP very lethal. However, those kind of ammo aren't suited for military use due to various legal and logistic reasons.

Yes but again, not much more than a 9mm using advanced bullet technology. The differences are so marginal in a human target that it really doesn't make a difference all things considered. .38 Special up to about .45 ACP, assuming modern ammunition that functions reliably and can penetrate deep enough in tissue and thru bone to reach vitals, the bullet doesn't matter for all practical purposes.

-DA

Quote Reply

HERALD1357 2/18/2009 1:45:50 PM

Uh yeah they did, you might want to take up reading the BOOKS as well as a map...in some we try to defend the Philipines in othres we write the Philipines off...in some plans the US Navy rushes to Manila, inothers it didn't.

I know this JFKY. I studied it, as part of my bachelors.

Your definiton of "plan" is a poor one...I grant that all the US pre-war planning had the proper concept of operations, and foresaw the broad outlines of the Japan's defeat...it did not however make a Plan, yo know where units are tasked with specific missions to be accomplished by specific times.

My definition of PLAN is what is I said it IS. CREF my first reply.

The Joint Chiefs issued plans and directives, and the various CinC's carreid them out, creating plans...but what the War Plan Oranges did was to provide ideas on how to defeat Japan and where Japan would be forced/chose to fight it's Decisive Battle. And a lot of the planning assumptions were very good, no doubt. As at least one work says, though, one planning assumption was wrong, the US would have time to create a new battle fleet, as the US began to re-arm in 1940, not in 1942....

Don't try to obfuscate or mislead. Operations are NOT Warplans.

The US navy and US Army did get a lot right in their pre-war thining and planning, but it was not A War plan orange that produced victory...

The Warplan that produced the Leyte debacle was this one:

Rainbow 5 Pacific Annex WP PAC-46

The Army part of the plan called for MacArthur to fort up on Bataan and stand a siege. That was WPO-3 by the way. He screwed that up by dissipating his forces trying to defend everywhere on Luzon in contradiction and CONTRAVENTION to his orders and to the PLAN. He should have been court martialed.

Especially as victory in the Pacific was achieved in the Guadacanal/New Guinea Theatre, not in the decisive fleet battle in or around the Japanese Home Islands.

We had to start in the Solomons because MacArthur screwed up in the Philippines, and even at that, your contention that we started in the Solomons is nonsense. That was an operation designed to save the SLOC to Australia. The Central pacific offensive staryted in the Carolines EXACTLY as planned.

TARAWA.

Herald

Quote Reply

YelliChink 2/18/2009 1:58:53 PM

-DA

Thanks for the explanation. I am just curious: how do you think about .22lr as tactical pistol round?

Quote Reply

JFKY Yes Herald... 2/18/2009 2:30:46 PM

But the war was won, the decisive campaign was fought in the Solomon/New Guinea Theatre, not the Central Pacific one. By the time the "Decisive Battle" of the Philippine Sea was fought the Combined Fleet had already been gutted...in the Solomons.

And Bataan WAS a part of War plan Orange...as well as Rainbow 5....the Navy intended to write off the Philippines, except when they didn't; hence my question, which War Plan Orange do you refer to?

Finally a War Plan IS an operational plan, isn't it? It's not just a set of ideas, but a set of concepts and allocation of forces and missions for those forces. The Anaconda Plan wasn't a war plan, it was an IDEA...can't help you. And the various War Plan Oranges and Rainbow's allocated forces, and missions, and tasks to specific commanders. Not just ideas....

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 NEXT