Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired)   You can't cut our $140 billion budget. For example, Germany might quit the NATO join with Russia and attack us, we will need a big conventional Army then   (wired.com ) divider line
    More: Unlikely, U.S. Army, NATO, Vision of the Future, Russia, doom, Sadr, Afghanistan War, Fallujah  
•       •       •

2693 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Oct 2011 at 11:34 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



91 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2011-10-31 03:06:34 PM  
Army's Vision of the Future: Mostly Doom, Some Idiocy

Yes, a bunch of idiots. For pointing out that almost every time you draw down the Army, you wind up sending them into combat immediately after the fact. Total morans, that group. Ask the Korean vets how well those summer clothes held up in the winter fighting.

Yeah, I know we have to cut, I support huge cuts, but don't call them idiots for pointing out historical fact.
 
2011-10-31 04:41:38 PM  
Just nuke them from orbit
 
2011-10-31 04:56:09 PM  
*yawn*

Whatever.
 
2011-10-31 06:17:59 PM  

NewportBarGuy: but don't call them idiots for pointing out historical fact.


The US military was reduced to nothing after the Civil War. We were fine. Same with WWI.

To even imply that large scale tank battles exist in the US Army's future is insane, so start reducing the armored corps. Any kind of winter training will be unlikely to be of value, so that can go.

What we need is not one big military with individual parts good at individual things, but an Army that is jack of all trades and designed for street fighting. Air power and remote strikes will compensate.
 
2011-10-31 07:49:13 PM  

GAT_00: NewportBarGuy: but don't call them idiots for pointing out historical fact.

The US military was reduced to nothing after the Civil War. We were fine. Same with WWI.

To even imply that large scale tank battles exist in the US Army's future is insane, so start reducing the armored corps. Any kind of winter training will be unlikely to be of value, so that can go.

What we need is not one big military with individual parts good at individual things, but an Army that is jack of all trades and designed for street fighting. Air power and remote strikes will compensate.


Actually, while I agree that the Army should take the brunt of cuts, I think Armor should be last to go. For the vast majority of interventions, the Marines will be more than enough. Anything serious, you pretty much just want to add heavy equipment.
 
2011-10-31 07:49:39 PM  

GAT_00: To even imply that large scale tank battles exist in the US Army's future is insane, so start reducing the armored corps.


i41.tinypic.com



GAT_00: Any kind of winter training will be unlikely to be of value, so that can go.


i43.tinypic.com



GAT_00: Air power and remote strikes will compensate.


You can't hold ground from the air. Something the zoomies have never understood since we wrongly allowed them to leave the Army Air Corps.

You can still cut defense by 50%, but most of that cut will come from the Navy Air Force and reducing the size of Army units. It can be done and still retain a significant punch.
 
2011-10-31 07:50:51 PM  
Not a tank battle, but just an example of how useful they can be as rolling artillery and just to plain scare the living sh*t out of opfor.
 
2011-10-31 08:29:17 PM  
This is awesome:

What's bringing out the military big spenders is the approaching deadline for the so-called supercommittee to agree on a plan for deficit reduction. If no agreement is reached, this failure is supposed to trigger cuts in the defense budget.

Faced with this prospect, Republicans - who normally insist that the government can't create jobs, and who have argued that lower, not higher, federal spending is the key to recovery - have rushed to oppose any cuts in military spending. Why? Because, they say, such cuts would destroy jobs.


Link (new window)
 
2011-10-31 08:50:31 PM  

NewportBarGuy: You can't hold ground from the air.


QFT.

NewportBarGuy: Not a tank battle, but just an example of how useful they can be as rolling artillery and just to plain scare the living sh*t out of opfor.


The savages in Afghanistan feared our Leo II's, and our allies loved them. We had the only MBT's in theatre, and the were heavily tasked all the time.
 
2011-10-31 09:03:24 PM  
There is a great short story about the God of War by Hermann Hesse in Pictor's Metamorphoses. The big take away: every generation thinks they're advanced and that war is this quaint thing of the past. The reality is that every generation is the same and the sad truth is that war will come again. I don't have any advice about how we should budget or plan, but I would suggest you abandon your smug distain for those who are watching the walls.
 
2011-10-31 09:17:40 PM  
This all seems stupidly predicated on the idea that we can't have another WWII-esque industrial boom if the need arises for full scale war.

Why doesn't the Army believe in America?
 
2011-10-31 09:19:19 PM  

NewportBarGuy: GAT_00: To even imply that large scale tank battles exist in the US Army's future is insane, so start reducing the armored corps.

[i41.tinypic.com image 400x262]

GAT_00: Any kind of winter training will be unlikely to be of value, so that can go.

[i43.tinypic.com image 640x440]

GAT_00: Air power and remote strikes will compensate.

You can't hold ground from the air. Something the zoomies have never understood since we wrongly allowed them to leave the Army Air Corps.

You can still cut defense by 50%, but most of that cut will come from the Navy Air Force and reducing the size of Army units. It can be done and still retain a significant punch.


One, I did not say remove all armor, just that armored divisions have lesser value. Armored divisions are designed to destroy other armored divisions, not hold ground. Integrated units hold more value, and units having access to a limited number of tanks is exceptionally valuable. They simply don't need whole divisions of tanks to hold cities.

And show me a fight that is likely to occur in the cold. The number of scenarios is exceptionally limited.

And again, I didn't say reduce infantry units. Those combined units can be very effective with our traditional air power and will suit almost any need. Tank battles are a thing of the past.
 
2011-10-31 09:33:36 PM  

GAT_00: NewportBarGuy: GAT_00: And show me a fight that is likely to occur in the cold. The number of scenarios is exceptionally limited.



North Korea, All of Eastern Europe, Pakistan, Iran.....

You have good points.... this isn't one of them.
 
2011-10-31 10:02:36 PM  

legendary: This all seems stupidly predicated on the idea that we can't have another WWII-esque industrial boom if the need arises for full scale war.

Why doesn't the Army believe in America?


Eisenhower said modern war was much too fast and that you didn't have time for a WWII-esque industrial boom. That's why Eisenhower said a military industrial complex was necessary.
 
2011-10-31 10:04:55 PM  

GAT_00:
And again, I didn't say reduce infantry units. Those combined units can be very effective with our traditional air power and will suit almost any need. Tank battles are a thing of the past.


Unlike aircraft, a tank can sit there 24/7. It's better than having to wait 15-30 minutes for an A-10 to show up.
 
2011-10-31 10:18:30 PM  

b2theory: GAT_00: NewportBarGuy: GAT_00: And show me a fight that is likely to occur in the cold. The number of scenarios is exceptionally limited.

North Korea, All of Eastern Europe, Pakistan, Iran.....

You have good points.... this isn't one of them.


You actually forgot one of the ones I consider a better one: Central Asia, particularly Kazakhstan.

However, you also have to come up with a legitimate reason to invade any of those countries. NK is the only plausible scenario I see.

vygramul: Unlike aircraft, a tank can sit there 24/7. It's better than having to wait 15-30 minutes for an A-10 to show up.


Again, not saying get rid of all tanks. Saying put a few of them per infantry unit. Are people failing at reading comprehension tonight?
 
2011-10-31 10:24:10 PM  

GAT_00:
Again, not saying get rid of all tanks. Saying put a few of them per infantry unit. Are people failing at reading comprehension tonight?


OK, but pure armored divisions haven't really existed for some time. A US armored division is something like 2/3 armor, and mech inf divisions are about 1/3 armor. (That's the rough ratio.) And in 2003 we did run into significant armored formations. Just because it was older T-72s and not armed with DU rounds doesn't mean we won't run into that kind of opponent. One might argue we have no business engaging in those kinds of shenanigans halfway around the world, but that's an entirely unrelated argument because the current reality is that we do.
 
2011-10-31 10:29:26 PM  
There's always China and their Brannigan'esque strategy of going for the pre-set kill limit.
 
2011-10-31 10:32:03 PM  

vygramul: GAT_00:
Again, not saying get rid of all tanks. Saying put a few of them per infantry unit. Are people failing at reading comprehension tonight?

OK, but pure armored divisions haven't really existed for some time. A US armored division is something like 2/3 armor, and mech inf divisions are about 1/3 armor. (That's the rough ratio.) And in 2003 we did run into significant armored formations. Just because it was older T-72s and not armed with DU rounds doesn't mean we won't run into that kind of opponent. One might argue we have no business engaging in those kinds of shenanigans halfway around the world, but that's an entirely unrelated argument because the current reality is that we do.


There are only two countries that have tanks capable of even possibly beating an Abrams, and that's China and Russia. Nothing they export can beat it, and I do not see any even remotely plausible scenarios where we would be engaged in land combat with either of those two.

The closest you can get is China repeating 1950, and that seems fantastically implausible. I don't think they like NK any more than we do; it is a significant thorn in their side they can't let go. North Korea to China is Israel to us.

Do people really think tank battles are still going to happen? They had their greatest moment at Kursk. Had WWIII happened during the Cold War, that might have beaten it, unless the nukes came out early. Now their day is done.

Let's stop fighting the last war like we always do.
 
2011-10-31 10:37:54 PM  
"Old Europe."
 
2011-10-31 10:45:29 PM  

Tr0mBoNe: There's always China and their Brannigan'esque strategy of going for the pre-set kill limit.


The rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.
 
2011-10-31 10:50:40 PM  

GAT_00: There are only two countries that have tanks capable of even possibly beating an Abrams, and that's China and Russia.


Wat? The Leopard 2A4M is a match for the Abrams, in all 3 realms, firepower, protection and mobility, as is the British Challenger II.
 
2011-10-31 10:55:18 PM  

GAT_00: vygramul: GAT_00:
Again, not saying get rid of all tanks. Saying put a few of them per infantry unit. Are people failing at reading comprehension tonight?

OK, but pure armored divisions haven't really existed for some time. A US armored division is something like 2/3 armor, and mech inf divisions are about 1/3 armor. (That's the rough ratio.) And in 2003 we did run into significant armored formations. Just because it was older T-72s and not armed with DU rounds doesn't mean we won't run into that kind of opponent. One might argue we have no business engaging in those kinds of shenanigans halfway around the world, but that's an entirely unrelated argument because the current reality is that we do.

There are only two countries that have tanks capable of even possibly beating an Abrams, and that's China and Russia. Nothing they export can beat it, and I do not see any even remotely plausible scenarios where we would be engaged in land combat with either of those two.

The closest you can get is China repeating 1950, and that seems fantastically implausible. I don't think they like NK any more than we do; it is a significant thorn in their side they can't let go. North Korea to China is Israel to us.

Do people really think tank battles are still going to happen? They had their greatest moment at Kursk. Had WWIII happened during the Cold War, that might have beaten it, unless the nukes came out early. Now their day is done.

Let's stop fighting the last war like we always do.


Well, you have to be careful about drawing the wrong conclusions from the post-Soviet era. Had 73 Easting (a significant tank battle) been a battle with Soviets, we would have been slaughtered - not because their equipment would have been better (one could assume the same equipment) but because their training was so much better. Really, we should have lost it, and all the rah-rah cheering of our technology is really kind of a smoke-screen for how badly we screwed up.

I have no problem cutting our military budget. We effectively subsidize European security by fighting most of their resource wars for them. (They get a shiatload more oil from the Middle East than we do.) Sure, it means we get two votes on those issues,but we can't afford to do it anymore.

I prefer we use the Marines for most of our needs and only use the army when we need heavy equipment. That's why we should keep the tanks and lose most everything else. We should probably lose most of the Air Force assets and rely on Navy aviation for everything other than heavy bombers. We can't really cut the Navy very much more.
 
2011-10-31 10:56:11 PM  

strathcona: GAT_00: There are only two countries that have tanks capable of even possibly beating an Abrams, and that's China and Russia.

Wat? The Leopard 2A4M is a match for the Abrams, in all 3 realms, firepower, protection and mobility, as is the British Challenger II.


Not addressing any of the merits of these fine pieces of equipment, I think Gat was talking about LIKELY opponents.
 
2011-10-31 10:58:52 PM  

strathcona: GAT_00: There are only two countries that have tanks capable of even possibly beating an Abrams, and that's China and Russia.

Wat? The Leopard 2A4M is a match for the Abrams, in all 3 realms, firepower, protection and mobility, as is the British Challenger II.


THIS!

S. Korea also has a peer equivalent to the Abrams as well.

I hate hypothetical tank discussions, but I haven't been impressed with China and Russia's offerings.

/I hate myself a little for even caring
 
2011-10-31 11:03:01 PM  

vygramul: strathcona: GAT_00: There are only two countries that have tanks capable of even possibly beating an Abrams, and that's China and Russia.

Wat? The Leopard 2A4M is a match for the Abrams, in all 3 realms, firepower, protection and mobility, as is the British Challenger II.

Not addressing any of the merits of these fine pieces of equipment, I think Gat was talking about LIKELY opponents.


Exactly. Germany in particular could give us serious problems, and so could both Russia and China. I consider it extremely implausible we'd attack any of them. There is not a state where there is a logical reason we would engage in combat that has a tank that could beat an Abrams.
 
2011-10-31 11:06:30 PM  

b2theory: I hate hypothetical tank discussions, but I haven't been impressed with China and Russia's offerings.


Nor have I been, ever.

//former tanker.
 
2011-10-31 11:14:08 PM  

GAT_00: vygramul: strathcona: GAT_00: There are only two countries that have tanks capable of even possibly beating an Abrams, and that's China and Russia.

Wat? The Leopard 2A4M is a match for the Abrams, in all 3 realms, firepower, protection and mobility, as is the British Challenger II.

Not addressing any of the merits of these fine pieces of equipment, I think Gat was talking about LIKELY opponents.

Exactly. Germany in particular could give us serious problems, and so could both Russia and China. I consider it extremely implausible we'd attack any of them. There is not a state where there is a logical reason we would engage in combat that has a tank that could beat an Abrams.


Comparative tank discussions usually focus on the holy trinity of penetration, armor, and mobility. That's part of why people tend to think German armor was the best in WWII. But the truth is that those may not be the most important, so long as they are sufficient. Survivability, reliability, ease-of-maintenance, and logistical requirements are far more important than many people realize. There's an argument to be made that the Sherman was the best tank of the war, and once you consider those, it's not an outrageous claim.

The truth is that the M1A2 is not invulnerable, and while, yes, I would rather be in an M1A2 than any tank Russia or China fields in any meaningful numbers, it would be foolish to believe they do not pose significant threats. Same with their export models.

/Truth in advertising: until I returned to UVA this year, I was an analyst for the U.S. Navy
//Undersea warfare was my primary area of expertise, but designing wargames was another- including ones for Afghanistan
 
2011-10-31 11:19:54 PM  

vygramul: Comparative tank discussions usually focus on the holy trinity of penetration, armor, and mobility. That's part of why people tend to think German armor was the best in WWII. But the truth is that those may not be the most important, so long as they are sufficient. Survivability, reliability, ease-of-maintenance, and logistical requirements are far more important than many people realize. There's an argument to be made that the Sherman was the best tank of the war, and once you consider those, it's not an outrageous claim.

The truth is that the M1A2 is not invulnerable, and while, yes, I would rather be in an M1A2 than any tank Russia or China fields in any meaningful numbers, it would be foolish to believe they do not pose significant threats. Same with their export models.


Great post.
 
2011-10-31 11:28:34 PM  

vygramul: and while, yes, I would rather be in an M1A2 than any tank Russia or China fields in any meaningful numbers, it would be foolish to believe they do not pose significant threats. Same with their export models.


I'd say the biggest threat from them comes from the Type 99 models of the PLA. I doubt they're really better than a M1A2, but they're closer than anything outside Europe. I'll start worrying should they start exporting them in significant numbers. Nothing else we're likely to fight comes close to an Abrams. Though should Germany start exporting Leopard tanks, we've got a whole different problem.

China's armor doesn't have the air support we have though. Clancy clearly was just having fun blowing the ever loving fark out of China's military in The Bear and the Dragon, but that's tempered by the fact that he got closer than any military predictions of the Gulf War with Red Storm Rising, concerning US military power, air power, and things like munitions. We still have that air power on our side, though current projects are going further and further towards Superiority. Drone power is the future.

Also,

vygramul: There's an argument to be made that the Sherman was the best tank of the war


Holy wat. That's a new one to me. Panzer IVs almost better than Shermans, much less something like the Panthers or Tigers.
 
2011-10-31 11:29:25 PM  
And yes, that is ignoring Germany's miniscule supply power. But one on one power matters quite a bit too.
 
2011-10-31 11:35:02 PM  

GAT_00: vygramul: There's an argument to be made that the Sherman was the best tank of the war

Holy wat. That's a new one to me. Panzer IVs almost better than Shermans, much less something like the Panthers or Tigers.


I've worked on a Sherman. We have one in our Historical Vehicle Troop. Not what I'd call easy to maintain.
 
2011-10-31 11:40:20 PM  
Ah yes. The same old "If you cut our military budgets, the bad guys will take over" sh*t that they used for decades to justify programs like Stealth Toilets and swanky flying bachelor pads for Air Force brass.
 
2011-10-31 11:42:48 PM  

GAT_00:
Holy wat. That's a new one to me. Panzer IVs almost better than Shermans, much less something like the Panthers or Tigers.


Like I said, once one's analysis becomes more sophisticated than just firepower v armor, it starts getting grim for the German tanks.

In my divine innocence as a young man, I once asked, if fighting ten tank duels, which would someone rather be in: a Tiger or a Sherman? The answer was, "Well, if you had to show up to 7 of those battles without your Tiger, how does that battle look now?"

Another question to ponder is, "Would the US have been better off with German tanks than the Sherman?" That makes the question logistical-capability-neutral. The answer is no. Because the break-down-rate would have left the US stalled in France with the breakdowns.

The Sherman was way more reliable and not even in the same ballpark - heck, not even the same sport - when it came to maintainability. German tanks and engineering were things of beauty, to be sure, but they were a maintenance nightmare.

The Sherman was also far more survivable. Yes, they had a reputation of brewing up and were called "Ronsons" because when you DID die, it was frequently ugly. But a US crew could reasonably expect to survive the loss of their tank. Not so for a German crew. US shock protection meant that if the Sherman survived a hit, so did their crew. A German crew could be severely injured by non-penetrating hits. And (this is really hardly worth mentioning but I will do so as another example of something other than firepower and protection that matters) US gyro-stabilitization of the gun mount meant they could actually fire while moving and not be ridiculously optimistic to think they had a remote chance of hitting something.

strathcona: GAT_00: vygramul: There's an argument to be made that the Sherman was the best tank of the war

Holy wat. That's a new one to me. Panzer IVs almost better than Shermans, much less something like the Panthers or Tigers.

I've worked on a Sherman. We have one in our Historical Vehicle Troop. Not what I'd call easy to maintain.


Compared to a German tank, they're dreamboats to maintain. The Panther in particular was just a gorgeous piece of engineering, but essentially unfixable without plenty of time, space, and equipment.
 
2011-10-31 11:43:20 PM  
Our budget problems are simple.

Revert the tax code to pre-2001.
Reduce military spending and the defense budget to pre-2001 levels.
Remove the DHS.

You know, just unf*ck everything that George W. Bush did.
 
2011-10-31 11:45:27 PM  
iaincarstairs.files.wordpress.com
 
2011-10-31 11:45:43 PM  

GAT_00: And yes, that is ignoring Germany's miniscule supply power. But one on one power matters quite a bit too.


Note that it's not a matter of Germany's miniscule supply power. It would be faulty analysis to say one tank was worse than another because the first's country didn't have the logistics assets of the second's.
 
2011-10-31 11:47:17 PM  

bulldg4life: Revert the tax code to pre-2001.
Reduce military spending and the defense budget to pre-2001 levels.
Remove the DHS.


Yeah but how would the 1% remain the 1%?
 
2011-10-31 11:47:27 PM  
Why can't we just put roughly 65% of our standing army in some kind of suspended animation? I seen this show once where this guy fell into some kind of freezer and got locked in there for a 1000 years. He came out of it just fine!

blueherald.com
 
2011-10-31 11:47:59 PM  

Britney Spear's Speculum: [iaincarstairs.files.wordpress.com image 640x520]


That's not a fair comparison, really, for a variety of reasons. For one, I'm sure significant savings could be made by getting rid of body armor and most of our precision munitions. We could also use China's policy of "meh, we can lose a million men and not notice it, so let's give them crappy equipment" and that would save tons of money but not really make anyone happy.
 
2011-10-31 11:49:17 PM  

vygramul: We could also use China's policy of "meh, we can lose a million men and not notice it,


[citation needed]
 
2011-10-31 11:49:57 PM  

vygramul: Compared to a German tank, they're dreamboats to maintain. The Panther in particular was just a gorgeous piece of engineering, but essentially unfixable without plenty of time, space, and equipment.


I think that's largely the result of the rushed nature of the late German tanks. The T-34s were a nasty shock with the Panzer III, much less killing a KV-1.
 
2011-10-31 11:50:34 PM  
Asked whether he had a "roaming eye," Cain replied "I enjoy flowers like everybody else," but said that he knew the limits.

"I believe I have a good sense for where you cross the line relative to sexual harassment but you have to know the lady, the individual," he said.


I'd be willing to bet that Cain's idea of where "the line" is for sexual harassment is right around where it was in 1964.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/herman-cain-changes-story-b u t-tells-fox-hes-innocent.php?ref=fpblg
 
2011-10-31 11:53:15 PM  
Well, that was obviously put in the wrong thread.
 
2011-10-31 11:53:24 PM  

Britney Spear's Speculum: vygramul: We could also use China's policy of "meh, we can lose a million men and not notice it,

[citation needed]


Seriously? How else do they afford almost a million men more in their military for that much less money? Do you really think the price difference is all about toilets?
 
2011-10-31 11:57:07 PM  

GAT_00: vygramul: Compared to a German tank, they're dreamboats to maintain. The Panther in particular was just a gorgeous piece of engineering, but essentially unfixable without plenty of time, space, and equipment.

I think that's largely the result of the rushed nature of the late German tanks. The T-34s were a nasty shock with the Panzer III, much less killing a KV-1.


The Panther was designed before things got ugly on the East Front. No rushing in design required. The PIII and PIV were really not much better for maintenance. Certainly not in the class of the Sherman. Damage that would scrap a PzIII was repairable on the Sherman.
 
2011-11-01 12:02:40 AM  

GAT_00: Any kind of winter training will be unlikely to be of value, so that can go.


Um, Afghanistan?
 
2011-11-01 12:18:33 AM  
It would make a lot of sense to reduce our land forces to a small, elite and highly mobile force (spending more per soldier but less overall due to total reductions) then build up the national guard (useful for many other scenarios as well as providing a massive reserve of pseudo-trained infantry should we need to remobilize for some reason).


We could reduce our commitments to other nations by increments so we don't entirely abandon them out of the blue, give them a chance to build up. After that if South Korea chooses not to provide enough for their own defense, or Japan, or europe, or whatever . . . well not our problem.
 
2011-11-01 12:23:53 AM  

watson.t.hamster: It would make a lot of sense to reduce our land forces to a small, elite and highly mobile force (spending more per soldier but less overall due to total reductions) then build up the national guard (useful for many other scenarios as well as providing a massive reserve of pseudo-trained infantry should we need to remobilize for some reason).


We could reduce our commitments to other nations by increments so we don't entirely abandon them out of the blue, give them a chance to build up. After that if South Korea chooses not to provide enough for their own defense, or Japan, or europe, or whatever . . . well not our problem.


South Korea can probably handle the North Korean Army at this point.
 
2011-11-01 12:36:37 AM  

PanicMan: GAT_00: Any kind of winter training will be unlikely to be of value, so that can go.

Um, Afghanistan?


also Bosnia.

I fail to see how cutting winter training for ground units will save money. unless you mean not issuing winter clothing, which is stupid.

if it were up to me, I'd roll all the services into one. having three different sets of supply, procurement, and personnel (none of which work effectively, I hear)
is farking stupid.

they'd get over it eventually. maybe they'd even learn that they have to work together.
 
Displayed 50 of 91 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report