NationStates Jolt Archive

We all know the problems: cash rich but labor poor. I'm wondering if we can get some ideas here.
I am stupid when it comes to military affairs, but I believe that it is time for the military to start acting less like a special caste and more like the inner fighter we know is in there. Donald Rumsfeld is working wonders for the organization. By intergrating its structure horizontally, outsourcing menial jobs to civilians, and pushing for a greater emphasis on technology, Rumsfeld is really making improvements. But that's just me. How about you?

"but I believe that it is time for the military to start acting less like a special caste and more like the inner fighter we know is in there."

Come again?

They could start by not shooting their own side quite so much.

<blink>
:confused:

An honest question. An honest answer:

They should deploy NanoWeapons.

All hail kackie goo.

:eek:

They could start by not shooting their own side quite so much.
Overkill. Every tank and fighting vehicle has a liquid nitrogen panel these days to disrupt heat signitures, and reduce friendly fire. The military's been going overboard with that kinda stuff since Desert Storm. Half the US casualties there were friendly fire, you know.

you would first need to convince me that there is some need of improvement. our military does a great job in difficult circumstances.

the only problem i see is at the very top.

you would first need to convince me that there is some need of improvement. our military does a great job in difficult circumstances.

the only problem i see is at the very top.
I have an idea for that. Anyone that reaches the flag level should have no particular service attached, save the ones for highly technical jobs. And because of the increasingly political nature of war, the civilian leadership should have a bigger role in running the military.

Overkill. Every tank and fighting vehicle has a liquid nitrogen panel these days to disrupt heat signitures, and reduce friendly fire. The military's been going overboard with that kinda stuff since Desert Storm. Half the US casualties there were friendly fire, you know.

Alot of the high percentage of friendly fire losses comes down to the fact that because our weapons are far more effective than that of the enemy, that if it is mistakenly fired, the odds of inflicting casualties are far higher than say a 1991 Iraqi Army salvo... Modern warfare at long distances unfortunatly provides many chances for friendly fire, being killed by one's own artillery is a common one, but in conflicts with a high casualty rate, incidence is marginalized in comparison to enemy fire.

Alot of the high percentage of friendly fire losses comes down to the fact that because our weapons are far more effective than that of the enemy, that if it is mistakenly fired, the odds of inflicting casualties are far higher than say a 1991 Iraqi Army salvo... Modern warfare at long distances unfortunatly provides many chances for friendly fire, being killed by one's own artillery is a common one, but in conflicts with a high casualty rate, incidence is marginalized in comparison to enemy fire.
True. But it was still in need of some addressing. It's happened less frequently since. I believe the worst incident was in Afghanistan, although that was stupid. They bombed a group of soldiers from a plane, and the pilots were on meth.

True. But it was still in need of some addressing. It's happened less frequently since. I believe the worst incident was in Afghanistan, although that was stupid. They bombed a group of soldiers from a plane, and the pilots were on meth.

An exceptional rarity...the pilot should have been flogged, an incredible act of stupidity.

easy. cut its funding by 50-80%. instant improvement for everybody.

oh yeah, i almost forgot - a solid round of war crimes and human rights trials for pretty much the entire leadership would also help.

An exceptional rarity...the pilot should have been flogged, an incredible act of stupidity.
Yes. That begets another question: how to get the same benefits of meth without the consequences. The pilots claimed that it was Air Force procedure. Whether it was or wasn't, it's certainly a good, if ultimately misguided idea, if it ever existed. The military has been a world leader in bodily enhancement. Its contraceptives allow the first amputees to ever serve in active duty. Let's move to other parts of the body. The military so far is researching ways to work with the body. How about we change it instead? The technology is gradually starting to come through the pipeline.

easy. cut its funding by 50-80%. instant improvement for everybody.
oh yeah, i almost forgot - a solid round of war crimes and human rights trials for pretty much the entire leadership would also help.

Yes, improvement for the Chinese, Russians, and everyone else who'd love to take a shot at America. I'd say there's more than one war-crimes trial that needs to be prosecuted, however.

Make the military entirely defensive, then we won’t need a very high recruitment rate, and we work on improving defensive technology, such as missile defense systems. Problem solved.

Make the military entirely defensive, then we won’t need a very high recruitment rate, and we work on improving defensive technology, such as missile defense systems. Problem solved.

I don't know, being too defensive might make us vulnerable and unable to counterattack effectively.

Make the military entirely defensive, then we won’t need a very high recruitment rate, and we work on improving defensive technology, such as missile defense systems. Problem solved.
Offense is the best defense. Defense is nice if we missed something, but we don't want a new Maginot Line.

Make the military entirely defensive, then we won’t need a very high recruitment rate, and we work on improving defensive technology, such as missile defense systems. Problem solved.

For what? We have no enemies to defend from. All of our enemies currently require us to field a mobile offensive force. The only enemies which would suit us to build a defensive force against are China and Russia like nations. Nations that would fight us conventionally. Our Navy already makes any war with them requiring us to have an offensive force, since they will not be attacking our mainland conventionally.

Our military needs to seriously rethink a lot of its self. First, the Coast Guard (not part of the military technically, but I'm counting it) needs to seriously overhaul all of its ships, or get new ones. Ever been in one? They are disgusting, you sleep underneath mold, and everything breaks. Ok, good.

Now, the Marines need to be seriously toned down. The Marines are not supposed to be a replacement Army. They should not be a seperate branch of the Armed Services (No, I'm not saying they are, but a lot of them act like it, and would love it), and need to become less independent. The Navy currently is building Security Brigades that are designed to field sailors who are equipped and trained in ground combat for ship to shore operations. Sound familar? So, the Marines are brought down from a field fighting force, to a shore security and rapid reaction offensive force (a la, keeping the units based on LHDs and the like active).

The Navy needs to seriously correct the gap in fire support ability it has. In the short term, I would recommend recommissioning the at least two of the Iowas until the DDX design becomes operational (and at this stage of theory, that could be decades away). Also, since we seem to be conducting a whole lot of brown water duty, I think we need more brown water ships, not the ships with paper armor designed for duty on the high seas. Though as a deterrent force, we still need to maintain our Blue Ocean naval superiority.

The Army, probably along with the Marines, in need of the most reform. They are still stuck with a largely Cold War force, and I don't think this is such a bad thing all the time. We do need heavy forces to fight heavy forces, so I don't think we need to be an all light force. But on the other hand, the Army does need a bit more mobility to respond to situations. Look at Afghanistan, the Marines were sent into a landlocked nation before the Army. Why? Because the Marines are faster and more suited to rapid reactions. Some people point to the Stryker as us moving out of the heavy force doctrine, but that thing is a massive failure. It is designed to provide armor support, but lacks any armor of its own to defend against handheld weapons. It requires a "cage" (which is not in the least satisfactorily effective) to block handheld at weapons, and with it, cannot fit into C-130's as it was designed to allow it to "deploy quickly". Even without the cage, it has trouble fitting into a C-130. There are many more problems, but I'll stop there.

As for the Air Force. Well, along with the Navy I think they are doing thier job quite well. They need a bit more ground security for the atmosphere they will be fighting in, and probably less of a Strategic force, but overall they are doing fine.

I don't know, being too defensive might make us vulnerable and unable to counterattack effectively.
A good defense would include us retaining the ability to retaliate if we are attacked, but keep active duty members down to save cash. A large well-trained reserve would do the trick.
Just look at WW2. We had a rather small army when Pearl Harbor was attacked, but by the time we landed at Normandy, almost every young male in the country had been integrated into the army, and we won.
If the United States was ever attacked militarily again, that’s what would happen. You would have literally millions signing up.

A good defense would include us retaining the ability to retaliate if we are attacked, but keep active duty members down to save cash. A large well-trained reserve would do the trick.
Just look at WW2. We had a rather small army when Pearl Harbor was attacked, but by the time we landed at Normandy, almost every young male in the country had been integrated into the army, and we won.
If the United States was ever attacked militarily again, that’s what would happen. You would have literally millions signing up.

Still, that was with the support of a battle-hardened Army (The British), with most of the enemy fighting a massive horde on the other side of thier frontiers, and already with dominance of the seas and a nearby base. Also, we had a lot of time to build up that force (4 years at wartime capacity, we had already established a draft and began rearming in 1940). Nowadays, anything that happens in the world will happen fast, and require a very fast reaction. If China were to flood across the Straits of Taiwan, it wouldn't do it in a prolonged campaign. Neither would North Korea if it ever attacked the South (though the South is a lot more capable of defending itself this time around). The US requires a large conventional force to respond to these crisis.

Just look at WW2. We had a rather small army when Pearl Harbor was attacked, but by the time we landed at Normandy, almost every young male in the country had been integrated into the army, and we won.
If the United States was ever attacked militarily again, that’s what would happen. You would have literally millions signing up.
The issue there is time. Currently it takes 2 to 4 years to train the recruits (though for some areas I'm told it's longer).

In WWII, boot camp was 6 months with the idea of shoving them out on the battle field in the hopes they would learn not to get shot.

Given the technology the military handles now... I'm not sure a WWII mentality is a good idea and if we took four years to build up the military back to an offensive force, the war would probably be over by then.

The issue there is time. Currently it takes 2 to 4 years to train the recruits (though for some areas I'm told it's longer).

In WWII, boot camp was 6 months with the idea of shoving them out on the battle field in the hopes they would learn not to get shot.

Given the technology the military handles now... I'm not sure a WWII mentality is a good idea and if we took four years to build up the military back to an offensive force, the war would probably be over by then.
What exactly is stopping us from going back to six months if necessary?

What exactly is stopping us from going back to six months if necessary?
Needed knowledge on how to operate the technology currently employed by the armed forces. That and canon fodder does not an effective force make. ;)

What exactly is stopping us from going back to six months if necessary?

The fact that being in the Army now requires you know a lot m ore than how to march, drop down, and shoot a rifle. The level of sophistication necessitates that our Army needs much longer training times. Remember, boot camp is not the end of training for our Armed Force, there is still specialist training. And with the balance between support and combat troops tipping further and further towards support as our battle machine becomes more advanced, it takes many months and even years to produce soldiers capable of fulfilling thier duties.

bump

Make the military entirely defensive, then we won’t need a very high recruitment rate, and we work on improving defensive technology, such as missile defense systems. Problem solved.

The best defense is an overpowering offense.

Needed knowledge on how to operate the technology currently employed by the armed forces. That and canon fodder does not an effective force make. ;)

True. Which means 5-7 year changes need to made and currently projected rates for conflicts. Not easy.

As I understand it an M-16 and other basic gear can be learned fairly fast, it's specialist gear that takes longer. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

As I understand it an M-16 and other basic gear can be learned fairly fast, it's specialist gear that takes longer. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

That would be fine if all we needed were riflemen to win against anyone. But even our modern infantry (which may one day become an entirely new degree of sophisticated) requires around 2 or 3 other soldiers dedicated to ensuring he stays in supply and moves about, and a whole lot more to keep him updated and send him somewhere, and none of them are direct combat troops. Most of these other jobs require some level of training beyond a month long crash course.

Further, the more advanced weapons, like armor, artillery, engineers, require months upon months of training not only to learn how to operate sophisticated technology, but to act as a cohesive unit with other vehicles as if you were one.

First, what's wrong with the current military?

In my opinion, the problems are:

1) The current confict in Iraq and the GWOT have stretched our active duty forces too far, as witnessed by the overuse of the reserves.

2) The current abuses the reserve system have put it in jeopardy of being unable to properly function.

3) It is increasingly clear that the "win 2 major wars at once" strategy is flawed. There is an apparant stalemate in 1 major war and 1 minor war.

4) The current leadership has shown serious faults in planning, if the president is to be believed. Or the president and SecDef have been shown to have faulty judgement. Many examples: allowing the conflict in Iraq to distract from other strategically more important conflicts and potential conflicts (GWOT, N. Korea, Iran, etc.), the failure to properly plan for all contengencies　in Iraq, etc.

5) We are still training for the cold war in many respects. Technology has increasingly been emphasised over training in the neccessary skills for the current sorts of conflicts we are engaging in, and will continue to engage in.

6) The Navy and Air Force are in pretty good shape, but we are deploying our carriers for way too long. Also, many potential naval conflicts will involve more submarine threats than currently expected.


My solutions

We need to return to at least the pre-"peace dividend" Army and USMC force levels. We need 20 active divisions, minimum, if we are going to put sufficient forces into the types of conflicts occuring in the post-Cold War world.

This will also help to relieve the pressure on the reserves. Further, we need to significantly change the manner in which reserve forces are used. A good start would be limiting their use to homeland security.

For naval forces, the addition of at least one more carrier group, possibly two. A larger ASW force would be good too..

For technology, the FCS needs a complete rethink. It probably needs to be completely restarted. The Stryker are OK, but a heavier ICV (an updated M2 Bradley?) is needed.

We especially need more civil affairs units. We also need better and more divesrified language and cultural sensitivity training.

(Some of this is more completely well thought out and some is not.)

Replies in bold

For what? We have no enemies to defend from. All of our enemies currently require us to field a mobile offensive force. The only enemies which would suit us to build a defensive force against are China and Russia like nations. Nations that would fight us conventionally. Our Navy already makes any war with them requiring us to have an offensive force, since they will not be attacking our mainland conventionally.

Yes, exactly so. Also, we are engaging in protecting US civilians abroad more frequently, so this also needs to be considered.

Our military needs to seriously rethink a lot of its self. First, the Coast Guard (not part of the military technically, but I'm counting it) needs to seriously overhaul all of its ships, or get new ones. Ever been in one? They are disgusting, you sleep underneath mold, and everything breaks. Ok, good.

Yes, absolutely. They need beefing up as well, in order to more effectively protect the ports.

Now, the Marines need to be seriously toned down. The Marines are not supposed to be a replacement Army. They should not be a seperate branch of the Armed Services (No, I'm not saying they are, but a lot of them act like it, and would love it), and need to become less independent. The Navy currently is building Security Brigades that are designed to field sailors who are equipped and trained in ground combat for ship to shore operations. Sound familar? So, the Marines are brought down from a field fighting force, to a shore security and rapid reaction offensive force (a la, keeping the units based on LHDs and the like active).

I'd like to see a return to a force akin to the early part of this century. The USMC did excellent work in the numerous small wars they were sent to in the late 19th and early 20th century. Also, didn't they officially become a separate branch, but still under the Department of the Navy?

The Navy needs to seriously correct the gap in fire support ability it has. In the short term, I would recommend recommissioning the at least two of the Iowas until the DDX design becomes operational (and at this stage of theory, that could be decades away). Also, since we seem to be conducting a whole lot of brown water duty, I think we need more brown water ships, not the ships with paper armor designed for duty on the high seas. Though as a deterrent force, we still need to maintain our Blue Ocean naval superiority.



The Army, probably along with the Marines, in need of the most reform. They are still stuck with a largely Cold War force, and I don't think this is such a bad thing all the time. We do need heavy forces to fight heavy forces, so I don't think we need to be an all light force. But on the other hand, the Army does need a bit more mobility to respond to situations. Look at Afghanistan, the Marines were sent into a landlocked nation before the Army. Why? Because the Marines are faster and more suited to rapid reactions. Some people point to the Stryker as us moving out of the heavy force doctrine, but that thing is a massive failure. It is designed to provide armor support, but lacks any armor of its own to defend against handheld weapons. It requires a "cage" (which is not in the least satisfactorily effective) to block handheld at weapons, and with it, cannot fit into C-130's as it was designed to allow it to "deploy quickly". Even without the cage, it has trouble fitting into a C-130. There are many more problems, but I'll stop there.

As for the Air Force. Well, along with the Navy I think they are doing thier job quite well. They need a bit more ground security for the atmosphere they will be fighting in, and probably less of a Strategic force, but overall they are doing fine.

I don't think I can find anyother nits to pick. :)

you would first need to convince me that there is some need of improvement. our military does a great job in difficult circumstances.

the only problem i see is at the very top.

Largely agreed, especially if you include congressional leadership.

I browsed through this thread pretty quick so someone else may have beaten me to this but...

PUTTING ARMOUR ON OUR HUMVEE'S MIGHT BE A GOOD START!

Some war crimes trials might not be a bad second. Starting with our "commander and chief".

I browsed through this thread pretty quick so someone else may have beaten me to this but...

PUTTING ARMOUR ON OUR HUMVEE'S MIGHT BE A GOOD START!

Planning properly so that we would have had sufficient force levels could have prevented that being needed in the first place.

I browsed through this thread pretty quick so someone else may have beaten me to this but...

PUTTING ARMOUR ON OUR HUMVEE'S MIGHT BE A GOOD START!

Some war crimes trials might not be a bad second. Starting with our "commander and chief".

Umm... They put a ton of armor on humvee's like enough to stop most RPG's

But a better way to improve our army would be... Get lots more trained snipers with tank piercing shells! :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

and for the friendly fire thing... well we could just add chips to our armor and put a ping on a rangers hud but i dont know if they use the eye computers in mass yet prolly costs alot -.-

Umm... They put a ton of armor on humvee's like enough to stop most RPG's

But a better way to improve our army would be... Get lots more trained snipers with tank piercing shells!

I hope you did mean both as jokes. (it's sometimes difficult to tell who's trying to make a funny around here and who's just being ignorant.)

I hope you did mean both as jokes. (it's sometimes difficult to tell who's trying to make a funny around here and who's just being ignorant.)

well to tell you the truth im not ignorant or joking just the thought of snipers makes me giddy XD :sniper: saves so many lives as oposed to some people might think

oh and b4 i forget they have removable armor for humvees that take about an hour to put on/take off that can withstand an RPG in the window XD just gets pretty beat up lol its amazing what you can learn if you watch the discovery channel where they show you what it is rather then read some bias book that says every one but people who aggre with the auther is wrong :P

We need to ditch the M-16 in favor of something better. The M-14 comes to my mind.

We need to ditch the M-16 in favor of something better. The M-14 comes to my mind.

How about... Sniper rifles! :sniper: :sniper: bang bang! haha and yes i am a little kid but i am smarter then most adults considering most people in the government make mistakes an 8 year old could have avioded

well to tell you the truth im not ignorant or joking just the thought of snipers makes me giddy XD :sniper: saves so many lives as oposed to some people might think

oh and b4 i forget they have removable armor for humvees that take about an hour to put on/take off that can withstand an RPG in the window XD just gets pretty beat up lol its amazing what you can learn if you watch the discovery channel where they show you what it is rather then read some bias book that says every one but people who aggre with the auther is wrong :P

Most Humvees aren't armored at all - roughly 8% (about 8000 of a fleet of 100,000). The armored versions essentially provide ballistic protection against upto NATO 7.62mm. The up-armored versions are "resistant" to RPGs.
So saying that they are all armored and can stop an RPG is either ignorant of the facts or a joke.

As for "snipers with tank piercing shells", that is a figment of your imagination. There is no sniper weapon capable of penitrating a tanks armor. Even the largest AMRs only use a 20mm projectile, far from what's needed to penitrate a tank's armor. Anti-tank rifles passed from the inventories of most armies in the early days of WWII. Again, your statement is either ignorant of the facts or a joke.

And the Discovery Channel is simply not a good source.

We need to ditch the M-16 in favor of something better. The M-14 comes to my mind.

Almost anything's better than the current M-4. The M-16A4 could be made better if the went back to the something like original rifling (designed to cause tumbling) and upped the caliber to 6.5 or 6.8 mm. But a new design in one of those calibers, and incorporating new improvements would be even better.

Most Humvees aren't armored at all - roughly 8% (about 8000 of a fleet of 100,000). The armored versions essentially provide ballistic protection against upto NATO 7.62mm. The up-armored versions are "resistant" to RPGs.
So saying that they are all armored and can stop an RPG is either ignorant of the facts or a joke.

As for "snipers with tank piercing shells", that is a figment of your imagination. There is no sniper weapon capable of penitrating a tanks armor. Even the largest AMRs only use a 20mm projectile, far from what's needed to penitrate a tank's armor. Anti-tank rifles passed from the inventories of most armies in the early days of WWII. Again, your statement is either ignorant of the facts or a joke.

And the Discovery Channel is simply not a good source.



Almost anything's better than the current M-4. The M-16A4 could be made better if the went back to the something like original rifling (designed to cause tumbling) and upped the caliber to 6.5 or 6.8 mm. But a new design in one of those calibers, and incorporating new improvements would be even better.


... they have sniper rifles with anti tank shells... you dont read up on mercs alot do you XD you can take down a tank easy XD i saw a custom made kinda sniper rifle that used the berral from a tank... but that might be classed as artillery cus the guy couldnt be right behind it cus it would totaly break his arm XD anyway i forgot what i was talking about and the fact about humvees dont have armor isnt true there is REALLY heavy armor for humvees and they are normaly used for quick runs anyway so they dont really need 2 b armored but when ever they do go into that stuff they add heavy armor! so what ever its pointless to debate about this cus we allready have tha best army on earth XD tanks and jets and missles oh my! but then again some ppl would say the ICBMs dont really count but i think they do and if anyone says we dont have ICBMs cus of some weird UN thing thats totaly not true we wouldnt disarm just cus the UN says so i mean if we disarmed that would just mean china could blast us 2... well them! anyway i lost my train of thought so im ending this post XD

'sniper rifle'... 'barrel from a tank'...

Bonkers :)

Well I am not just saying this because I am British but it is a well known fact that Internationally the British Armed Forces are the mot modern and up to dsate and are the most respected armed forces in the international community.

America is the world economic and military superpower but America should follow the British attitude to Military Strength and its attitude towards other peoples and nations

... they have sniper rifles with anti tank shells... you dont read up on mercs alot do you XD you can take down a tank easy XD i saw a custom made kinda sniper rifle that used the berral from a tank... but that might be classed as artillery cus the guy couldnt be right behind it cus it would totaly break his arm XD anyway i forgot what i was talking about and the fact about humvees dont have armor isnt true there is REALLY heavy armor for humvees and they are normaly used for quick runs anyway so they dont really need 2 b armored but when ever they do go into that stuff they add heavy armor! so what ever its pointless to debate about this cus we allready have tha best army on earth XD tanks and jets and missles oh my! but then again some ppl would say the ICBMs dont really count but i think they do and if anyone says we dont have ICBMs cus of some weird UN thing thats totaly not true we wouldnt disarm just cus the UN says so i mean if we disarmed that would just mean china could blast us 2... well them! anyway i lost my train of thought so im ending this post XD

:headbang:

Face it in total the best improvement you can make to an army in this day and age is more ICBMs and better ICBM deffences -.-

'sniper rifle'... 'barrel from a tank'...

Bonkers :)

I don't even know why I bothered... My brain hurts after that last one.

Well I am not just saying this because I am British but it is a well known fact that Internationally the British Armed Forces are the mot modern and up to dsate and are the most respected armed forces in the international community.

Your opinion, not fact.

America is the world economic and military superpower but America should follow the British attitude to Military Strength and its attitude towards other peoples and nations

Different histories require different approaches.

Face it in total the best improvement you can make to an army in this day and age is more ICBMs and better ICBM deffences -.-

Indeed.

No-one would have minded in the least if we'd nuked Iraq into the stone age.

</sarcasm>

Indeed.

No-one would have minded in the least if we'd nuked Iraq into the stone age.

</sarcasm>


LOL. You, I like. :) (And not just because you're from one of my all time favorite movies. ;))

Thanks :)

Orbital weapons FTW.

*Bad Guy makes a wireless phone call*
*NSA picks up phone*
*NSA identifies Bad Guy*
*USAF Space Command has standing operational orders to basically shoot whatever the NSA tells them*
*USAF Laser Satellite fires at targeted phone*
*Bad Guy gets obliterated*
*People across the street wonder wtf happened?*

Ahh, that will probably be another generation or so.

Overkill. Every tank and fighting vehicle has a liquid nitrogen panel these days to disrupt heat signitures, and reduce friendly fire. The military's been going overboard with that kinda stuff since Desert Storm. Half the US casualties there were friendly fire, you know.
yes an half the british casualties were "friendly fire" from american troops too!

We all know the problems: cash rich but labor poor. I'm wondering if we can get some ideas here.
I am stupid when it comes to military affairs, but I believe that it is time for the military to start acting less like a special caste and more like the inner fighter we know is in there. Donald Rumsfeld is working wonders for the organization. By intergrating its structure horizontally, outsourcing menial jobs to civilians, and pushing for a greater emphasis on technology, Rumsfeld is really making improvements. But that's just me. How about you?


Flogging is the only solution. Everyone will behave and no one will complain. Except the Human Rights activists, folg them too.!!

Fire all of your armed forces and outsource the work to lower cost Indian and Chinese forces.

maybe the american army should be trained better in/against guerrilla warfare and 'terrorists' since they only have to fight against such enemies (in the recent past).

they should also be better trained in their contact with the local people, handing out choclate isn't enough anymore.

a third thing i think should be improved is the psychologic warfare/propaganda or how should i call this. right now the iraqi civilians see the USA more as an occupation force, maybe they should trie to change that so that the terrorist don't gain a lot of recruits (ok, that will probably be kind of had, but you know what i mean, don't you?)

a third thing i think should be improved is the psychologic warfare/propaganda or how should i call this. right now the iraqi civilians see the USA more as an occupation force, maybe they should trie to change that so that the terrorist don't gain a lot of recruits (ok, that will probably be kind of had, but you know what i mean, don't you?)

Yes, hearts 'n' minds is one of the things the British Army does so well - with its background in NI you'd expect this.

As just one example, Brit troops were patrolling the streets of Basra with berets on and helmets stowed while it was safe to do so, suggesting to the local populace that they are not viewed as the enemy or something to be feared; in contrast, I beleive that US doctrine has it that having your helmet off in what's regarded to be a combat zone is crimanally negligent.

(Note - this isn't intended as a US bashing type post - simply to point out differences in operational practices and perhaps an area where the US military could learn from and improve.)

yes an half the british casualties were "friendly fire" from american troops too!
It's fine if the Brits want to improve their friendly-fire technology. But how many Brits have died in the entire GWOT?

maybe the american army should be trained better in/against guerrilla warfare and 'terrorists' since they only have to fight against such enemies (in the recent past).

they should also be better trained in their contact with the local people, handing out choclate isn't enough anymore.

I agree. The only major insurgency that the US was involved in was the Moro wars around 1900. They succeeded, but the tactics that were used would conflict with America's values today. I think the greatest sucess was the British counterinsurgency in Malaysia, where they focused on being a superpolice force, and going pursue terrorists only with solid intelligence. This is in contrast to the current US strategy of door-to-door searches looking for something, while praying that the political process works.
I read this idea in an article in Foreign Affairs. US troops should first secure the already safe provinces, so as to loosen the grip of militias, and hopefully eliminate any sectarian strife. Then we gradually go into a few unsecured cities, then act as a police force there. Once they are secure, we move on. This, as the author claims, may take a decade or more to see to completion, and initially, there'd be greater casualties. But eventually, fewer and fewer troops would be needed.

But how many Brits have died in the entire GWOT?

Must admit, I don't see the relevance of the question, unless you're trying to belittle the effort made by the British in Iraq; though I'm sure that's not the case, surely ?

Also it depends on how far back you want to take 'global war on terror'; certainly, quite a number lost their lives in Northern Ireland....

As for Brit firendly fire technology, the identity systems used in theatre are identical to those carried by US forces; they have to be.

As an example, take a look at the ir plates on Challenger II's, for example:

http://armyreco.ifrance.com/europe/angleterre/vehicules_lourds/challenger2/challenger_2_main_battle_tank_iraq_war_uk_british_09.jpg

maybe the american army should be trained better in/against guerrilla warfare and 'terrorists' since they only have to fight against such enemies (in the recent past).

they should also be better trained in their contact with the local people, handing out choclate isn't enough anymore.

a third thing i think should be improved is the psychologic warfare/propaganda or how should i call this. right now the iraqi civilians see the USA more as an occupation force, maybe they should trie to change that so that the terrorist don't gain a lot of recruits (ok, that will probably be kind of had, but you know what i mean, don't you?)


Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/ca-psyop.htm) (or CA and PSYOPs) are the terms you seem to be seeking. And yes, we need a whole hell of a lot more active CA and PSYOP units then we currently have (1 active PSYOPS group of 5 battalions and 1 active CA brigade). Most of our CA and PSYOPs units are reserves, and as I pointed out above, the resrves have been stretched and abused way beyond what's reasonable.

I agree. The only major insurgency that the US was involved in was the Moro wars around 1900. They succeeded, but the tactics that were used would conflict with America's values today.

That's simply not true. As I pointed out in my reply to The Sword and Sheild, the USMC did excellent work in the numerous small wars they were sent to in the late 19th and early 20th century. There is a damned good reason why Quantaco is once again teaching from the 1940 USMC "Small Wars Manual" (http://www.nwc.navy.mil/jmo/nopc/Book%20Reviews/Small%20Wars%20Manual%20-%20Parker.htm). They quite literally wrote the book on the exact types of conflicts that the US is engaging in now. The "Small Wars Manual" is specifically written for “operations undertaken under executive authority, wherein military force is combined with diplomatic pressure in the internal or external affairs of another state whose government is unstable, inadequate, or unsatisfactory for the preservation of life and of such interests as are determined by the foreign policy of our nation”. And it is compiled from roughly 60 years of highly sucessful USMC experience in these sorts of conflicts.

I think the greatest sucess was the British counterinsurgency in Malaysia, where they focused on being a superpolice force, and going pursue terrorists only with solid intelligence. This is in contrast to the current US strategy of door-to-door searches looking for something, while praying that the political process works.
I read this idea in an article in Foreign Affairs. US troops should first secure the already safe provinces, so as to loosen the grip of militias, and hopefully eliminate any sectarian strife. Then we gradually go into a few unsecured cities, then act as a police force there. Once they are secure, we move on. This, as the author claims, may take a decade or more to see to completion, and initially, there'd be greater casualties. But eventually, fewer and fewer troops would be needed.

The US actually did quite well in a number of these sorts of conflicts. The USMC did an excellent job in China, the Phillipines, Korea, and the so-called "Banana Wars" (Haiti, Nicaragua, Cuba, etc.). Furthermore, the USSF "Hearts and Minds" operations in Vietnam (to some degree based on SAS experiences in the Malay Emergency) were one of the most sucessful sets of operations of the entire conflict in Vietnam.

With those nits picked, you are more or less exactly correct. Which is why I said above that I want to see the USMC returned to it's pre-WWII role and why we need a much larger active civil affairs component. The post-cold war world is involving the US in a large number of small wars. This is not new. it is a return to a "normal" state of affairs, and the US leadership still doesn't seem to understand that.

... they have sniper rifles with anti tank shells... you dont read up on mercs alot do you XD you can take down a tank easy XD i saw a custom made kinda sniper rifle that used the berral from a tank... but that might be classed as artillery cus the guy couldnt be right behind it cus it would totaly break his arm XD anyway i forgot what i was talking about and the fact about humvees dont have armor isnt true there is REALLY heavy armor for humvees and they are normaly used for quick runs anyway so they dont really need 2 b armored but when ever they do go into that stuff they add heavy armor! so what ever its pointless to debate about this cus we allready have tha best army on earth XD tanks and jets and missles oh my! but then again some ppl would say the ICBMs dont really count but i think they do and if anyone says we dont have ICBMs cus of some weird UN thing thats totaly not true we wouldnt disarm just cus the UN says so i mean if we disarmed that would just mean china could blast us 2... well them! anyway i lost my train of thought so im ending this post XD
once you can no longer hold a weapon and shoot it like a rifle, it isn't a "rifle" anymore, sniper or otherwise.
what do you think IEDs target? "quick runnning humvees" I think i'm gonna hafta disagree on all of them being armored here.
who ever said we didn't have ICBMs? and i don't think there's a UN "resolution" that prevents us from keeping the ones we have.
please stop using the angry smiley face. it doesn't show up on these forums.

please stop using the angry smiley face. it doesn't show up on these forums.

Aha! I wondered what was up with all the XDs. I thought it was just some other childish affectation mixed in with all the horrible net-speak and lack of grammar, spelling, and punctuation.

Oh, and great signature! :D

Fix the damn heli's in Afghanistan. Almost Half the Casualties there this year were from helicopter crashes(think it said so on the News)

Aha! I wondered what was up with all the XDs. I thought it was just some other childish affectation mixed in with all the horrible net-speak and lack of grammar, spelling, and punctuation.

Oh, and great signature! :D

yah, if you type that in yahoo, it comes up with.... okey, mebbe it wasn't yahoo, but X( is the angry face, mebbe XD is a smielly w/ the mouth open wide and x'd eyes.

Responce in red

For what? We have no enemies to defend from. All of our enemies currently require us to field a mobile offensive force. The only enemies which would suit us to build a defensive force against are China and Russia like nations. Nations that would fight us conventionally. Our Navy already makes any war with them requiring us to have an offensive force, since they will not be attacking our mainland conventionally.

Our military needs to seriously rethink a lot of its self. First, the Coast Guard (not part of the military technically, but I'm counting it) needs to seriously overhaul all of its ships, or get new ones. Ever been in one? They are disgusting, you sleep underneath mold, and everything breaks. Ok, good.The condition of the ship is a matter for the crew reguardless of the age of the ship

Now, the Marines need to be seriously toned down.What? The Marines are not supposed to be a replacement Army. They should not be a seperate branch of the Armed Services The Marines are a part of the US Navy (No, I'm not saying they are, but a lot of them act like it, and would love it), and need to become less independent. The Navy currently is building Security Brigades that are designed to field sailors who are equipped and trained in ground combat for ship to shore operations.Because we need MORE MARINES, the problem is that most moderen combat ships no longer have the ablity to billet Marines and have to rely on the ship's company. This has been the Marines job traditionally and unfortunately naval architects seem to have forgotten this. Sound familar? So, the Marines are brought down from a field fighting force, to a shore security and rapid reaction offensive force (a la, keeping the units based on LHDs and the like active).HUH? Today's Marines fill numerous roles from special ops to rapid deployment, there are even Marines stationed aboard ship.

The Navy needs to seriously correct the gap in fire support ability it has. In the short term, I would recommend recommissioning the at least two of the IowasAre you HIGH? I've been a FO for 16in naval gunfire, its not very accurate (it uses 50+ year old technology) it's slow and it's dangerous to use. I'd rather have 155 or air. until the DDX design becomes operational (and at this stage of theory, that could be decades away). Also, since we seem to be conducting a whole lot of brown water duty, I think we need more brown water ships, not the ships with paper armor designed for duty on the high seas. Though as a deterrent force, we still need to maintain our Blue Ocean naval superiority.

The Army, probably along with the Marines, in need of the most reform. They are still stuck with a largely Cold War force,This may be true for some units but not USMC or Ranger units. and I don't think this is such a bad thing all the time. We do need heavy forces to fight heavy forces, so I don't think we need to be an all light force. But on the other hand, the Army does need a bit more mobility to respond to situations. Look at Afghanistan, the Marines were sent into a landlocked nation before the Army. Why? Because the Marines are faster and more suited to rapid reactions.HELLO THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE THEIR FOR !!!! Rapid responce. Some people point to the Stryker as us moving out of the heavy force doctrine, but that thing is a massive failure. It is designed to provide armor support, but lacks any armor of its own to defend against handheld weapons. It requires a "cage" (which is not in the least satisfactorily effective) to block handheld at weapons, and with it, cannot fit into C-130's as it was designed to allow it to "deploy quickly". Even without the cage, it has trouble fitting into a C-130. There are many more problems, but I'll stop there.That's why the Marines use the LAV

As for the Air Force.The Air Farce is MOST in need of overhaul they need a replacement for the venerable B-52 and the need more low speed attack aircraft like the A-10 and AC-130 Well, along with the Navy I think they are doing thier job quite well. They need a bit more ground security for the atmosphere they will be fighting in, and probably less of a Strategic force, but overall they are doing fine.

Fix the damn heli's in Afghanistan. Almost Half the Casualties there this year were from helicopter crashes(think it said so on the News)
That's bad weather there. Ever been on a jumbo jet through a blizzard? That's what they do every day. Remember, Afghanistan is in the Hindu Kush, some of the highest mountains in the world, and the most forbidding.

Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/ca-psyop.htm) (or CA and PSYOPs) are the terms you seem to be seeking. And yes, we need a whole hell of a lot more active CA and PSYOP units then we currently have (1 active PSYOPS group of 5 battalions and 1 active CA brigade). Most of our CA and PSYOPs units are reserves, and as I pointed out above, the resrves have been stretched and abused way beyond what's reasonable.



That's simply not true. As I pointed out in my reply to The Sword and Sheild, the USMC did excellent work in the numerous small wars they were sent to in the late 19th and early 20th century. There is a damned good reason why Quantaco is once again teaching from the 1940 USMC "Small Wars Manual" (http://www.nwc.navy.mil/jmo/nopc/Book%20Reviews/Small%20Wars%20Manual%20-%20Parker.htm). They quite literally wrote the book on the exact types of conflicts that the US is engaging in now. The "Small Wars Manual" is specifically written for “operations undertaken under executive authority, wherein military force is combined with diplomatic pressure in the internal or external affairs of another state whose government is unstable, inadequate, or unsatisfactory for the preservation of life and of such interests as are determined by the foreign policy of our nation”. And it is compiled from roughly 60 years of highly sucessful USMC experience in these sorts of conflicts.



The US actually did quite well in a number of these sorts of conflicts. The USMC did an excellent job in China, the Phillipines, Korea, and the so-called "Banana Wars" (Haiti, Nicaragua, Cuba, etc.). Furthermore, the USSF "Hearts and Minds" operations in Vietnam (to some degree based on SAS experiences in the Malay Emergency) were one of the most sucessful sets of operations of the entire conflict in Vietnam.

With those nits picked, you are more or less exactly correct. Which is why I said above that I want to see the USMC returned to it's pre-WWII role and why we need a much larger active civil affairs component. The post-cold war world is involving the US in a large number of small wars. This is not new. it is a return to a "normal" state of affairs, and the US leadership still doesn't seem to understand that.
Thanks for telling me about the other counterinsurgencies. I actually had no clue that there were that many, but then aggain, the Latin Americans hate us, and the US occupied most of Central America and the Carribean at one time or another.
I don't think, however, that the US should return entirely to a pre-WWII military. The British Empire were able to occupy a quarter of the world with their small military (only a little over 300,000 for the entire army), yet got creamed in WWI when it had no real heavy forces. The US must maintain the capability to fight a nationstate like China or Russia, should the need ever arise. Howeverwe generally do need a smaller, lighter, and more surgical military.

The biggest improvement the US military could make?

Drop the mouse gun 5.56mm cartridge and go with the 6.8mm SPC. 9/10 Hadjis agree, 5.56 is THE round for infidels to use! Piss poor manstopper. Make the US military exempt from Taxes. And lastly, GET SOME NEW NUKES! City leveling nukes might have been OK in the 60's, but not now. We need a few thousand, but not any more. We need more smaller nukes, IE "Bunker-busters" and small-yield area device. Bring back White phophorous and Napalm/fire jelly. More carpet bombing. Adopt the Buffalo and that series of Armored vehicles to replace the armored humvee...

Now, I wanted to ask you about a recent hot button issue with the military, being realignment in the US. Several bases are closing, (mostly in the NE), some opening, and the majority will have forces moved. Is this a good thing?
Overall, I think yes. Some reccomendationss by the Pentagon were stupid, such as the closure of a shipyard in Maine. I mean, do you know how quickly coastal property is being gobbled up? What if we need that land again? Yet it's generally a good thing. I believe that it'll save money by closing gigantic AF bases against an enemy that doesn't exist anymore. In addition, it is cutting capacity that the military no longer needs, and probably doesn't want.
The majority of the bases closing are, what I believe, fought on political grounds rather than practical ones. But even then, there is life after a base closing. Austin TX had an AF base that closed about ten years ago. They turned it into an airport, complete with a runway for jumbo jets (which they hope to use for package carriers). They didn't even have to build it.

The biggest improvement the US military could make?

Drop the mouse gun 5.56mm cartridge and go with the 6.8mm SPC. 9/10 Hadjis agree, 5.56 is THE round for infidels to use! Piss poor manstopper. Make the US military exempt from Taxes. And lastly, GET SOME NEW NUKES! City leveling nukes might have been OK in the 60's, but not now. We need a few thousand, but not any more. We need more smaller nukes, IE "Bunker-busters" and small-yield area device. Bring back White phophorous and Napalm/fire jelly. More carpet bombing. Adopt the Buffalo and that series of Armored vehicles to replace the armored humvee...
Bunker busters may never come into fruition, but the military has begun manufacturing some new nukes. Not a lot, mind you, but just about a dozen a year. If you ask me, we really don't need as many nukes as we have now, but we can't loose them all because of age.

i think casualties would be greatly reduced if fewer people joined the military soley for scholarships. those are the people that never think about going to war and, when faced with killing someone, probably would not act as quickly. in terms of efficiency: i am glad the civilian world has taken over some of the less militaristic tasks. the united states, for obvious reasons, focuses on high-technology combat. i am not yet a soldier, but infantrymen, airborne and otherwise, should be taught more about desert combat and close combat. it wouldn't hurt to teach the basic infantryman about bomb diffusion.

i also think the army's promotional slogan 'an army of one' is a pretty awful way to think about things. if anything, i would have designed an ad campaign to show how being in the military, one is part of a brotherhood, a tight-knit organization and an integral part of a team. i understand that's more or less what they meant but i just don't like the phrase.

if fewer people went around saying that joining up was a mistake and how they're going off to their deaths and the war is a mistake and etc. it is one's own decision whether or not the war is a mistake, but it's not the soldier's fault. respect him. honor him. there could be a time where he fights a defensive war, and protects your life and your freedom.

Krystar']i think casualties would be greatly reduced if fewer people joined the military soley for scholarships. those are the people that never think about going to war and, when faced with killing someone, probably would not act as quickly. in terms of efficiency: i am glad the civilian world has taken over some of the less militaristic tasks. the united states, for obvious reasons, focuses on high-technology combat. i am not yet a soldier, but infantrymen, airborne and otherwise, should be taught more about desert combat and close combat. it wouldn't hurt to teach the basic infantryman about bomb diffusion.
I know. But for one, the compensation of soldiers is so engrained in every culture, moreso in the US since WWII. But I also wonder if anyone would join without these benefits. And I mean it. Are there really people who'd join the military based on duty and loyalty alone, or simply because they love the rush? I wanted to enlist, even though I didn't need the money. Bad balance and a right side that can barely function kept me out, but that surgery that gave me that was when I was a teen. I wanted to be a soldier long before then.
i also think the army's promotional slogan 'an army of one' is a pretty awful way to think about things. if anything, i would have designed an ad campaign to show how being in the military, one is part of a brotherhood, a tight-knit organization and an integral part of a team. i understand that's more or less what they meant but i just don't like the phrase.

if fewer people went around saying that joining up was a mistake and how they're going off to their deaths and the war is a mistake and etc. it is one's own decision whether or not the war is a mistake, but it's not the soldier's fault. respect him. honor him. there could be a time where he fights a defensive war, and protects your life and your freedom.
You contradicted yourself. The last paragraph states exactly why the Army uses the slogan it does: to emphasize the personal choice in the affair.

Thanks for telling me about the other counterinsurgencies. I actually had no clue that there were that many, but then aggain, the Latin Americans hate us, and the US occupied most of Central America and the Carribean at one time or another.
I don't think, however, that the US should return entirely to a pre-WWII military. The British Empire were able to occupy a quarter of the world with their small military (only a little over 300,000 for the entire army), yet got creamed in WWI when it had no real heavy forces. The US must maintain the capability to fight a nationstate like China or Russia, should the need ever arise. Howeverwe generally do need a smaller, lighter, and more surgical military.

Whoa nellie. Not the entire US military, just the USMC. The Army needs a big build up. Look back at my OP - where I talk about why we need to double the number of active divisions.

We do need to focus on a certain amount of lighter operations. And to some degree, that's what has been happening with SOCOM.

As for why Latin America hates the US, it's a whole heck of a lot more complicated. (But lets not get into that hijack. ;))

The military we need now needs to be able to handle a number of brushfire wars plus a largish conflict, so we need a balanced force, not a lighter one.

The biggest improvement the US military could make?

Drop the mouse gun 5.56mm cartridge and go with the 6.8mm SPC. 9/10 Hadjis agree, 5.56 is THE round for infidels to use! Piss poor manstopper.

Agreed.

Make the US military exempt from Taxes.

Agreed.

And lastly, GET SOME NEW NUKES! City leveling nukes might have been OK in the 60's, but not now. We need a few thousand, but not any more. We need more smaller nukes, IE "Bunker-busters" and small-yield area device.

See Lotus Puppy's comments.

Bring back White phophorous and Napalm/fire jelly.

Still in inventory. The media was screaming about US forces using Napalm in Iraq (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030810-napalm-iraq01.htm) just a short time ago. And don't forget the shit storm that got kicked up when WP was used in Fallujah.

More carpet bombing.

WTF??? Absolutely not.

Adopt the Buffalo and that series of Armored vehicles to replace the armored humvee...

At least for the short term fix in Iraq.

The condition of the ship is a matter for the crew reguardless of the age of the ship

The age of ships and the poor availability of replacement parts makes it increasingly difficult to keep the ships operating.

The Marines are a part of the US Navy

As you can see from the part of my post right after that, I am aware of that. But there are a lot of people who think they should be completely independent of the Navy. I think this is a bad idea, essentially creating another Army.

Because we need MORE MARINES, the problem is that most moderen combat ships no longer have the ablity to billet Marines and have to rely on the ship's company. This has been the Marines job traditionally and unfortunately naval architects seem to have forgotten this.

We need less Marines, imho. At any rate, they are not building it because we need more, they are building it because the Marines are not doing what they were originally supposed to anymore. They are becoming more and more of a land-only force, relying on the Navy only for transport (Something most Marines I've talked to have no problem with). And most modern ships do maintain a marine force, the Marines just are not providing enough in the Navy's opinion.

HUH? Today's Marines fill numerous roles from special ops to rapid deployment, there are even Marines stationed aboard ship.

I am aware of that, and no where in my post did I say otherwise. I just think they need to do a lot less of it and transfer most of that to the Army, to keep the roles between services defined, and I think the Army needs to stop having something to lean on.

Are you HIGH? I've been a FO for 16in naval gunfire, its not very accurate (it uses 50+ year old technology) it's slow and it's dangerous to use. I'd rather have 155 or air

Highly innaccurate, the Iowas in Desert Storm were accurate to within meters of thier targets. It does not use 50+ year old technology, only the very absics of it are 50+ years old, the Iowas were extensively modernised in the '80s. The Navy currently has a serious (and acknowledged) lack of fire support ability, yet continues to equip its ship with the inferior 5'' weapon that caused it. The Battleships may not be the prime weapon to fill this gap, but it is the only quick one we have. Not to mention the devestating effect they have on enemy morale, or did the Vietnamese demand the withdrawal of the New Jersey before continuinig peace talks because it was causing big waves.

This may be true for some units but not USMC or Ranger units

That would be fine if we weren't relying on the Army to do most of the fighting and operations. I can have one working brake on my car, that won't help me if I have to stop quickly.

HELLO THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE THEIR FOR !!!! Rapid responce

No, they are thier for amphibious assaults, Naval base security, and ship-to-shore operations. Being sent into a landlocked country to establish a forward base is not a Marine job.

The Air Farce is MOST in need of overhaul they need a replacement for the venerable B-52 and the need more low speed attack aircraft like the A-10 and AC-130

Actually, they need a replacement for the A-10. It is highly effective, but I'm sure a lot more could be done on a modern frame than simply making more of these valuable craft. And the B-52 might need replacement, but it doesn't need it as immediately as the other branches need reform. The Air Force is at least seeming to make more progress than the other branches. But right now, the Air Force is performing its missions a whole lot more satisfactorily than others, except in terms of identification, but that is a whole different matter. Though to be fair, it could be because thier mission in the new type of war is not that different than its former Cold War missions, except in a Strategic sense.

Ditch the 5.56 in favor of... I dunno... .308 NATO, perhaps? And drop 9mm in favor of the .45 ACP.

I think we should build a giant laser and call it... hmm... a Death Star. Then the world would bow to our wishes! Muahahahahahahaha! *walks off while looking backward, and slams into the side of a doorway*

The "tumbling" (keyholing) if not a product of the rifling it caused by the moving the center of gravity back in the bullet itself.

The USMC and the SEALS too I believe now feild a 25mm sniper rifle with an AP round.


Most Humvees aren't armored at all - roughly 8% (about 8000 of a fleet of 100,000). The armored versions essentially provide ballistic protection against upto NATO 7.62mm. The up-armored versions are "resistant" to RPGs.
So saying that they are all armored and can stop an RPG is either ignorant of the facts or a joke.

As for "snipers with tank piercing shells", that is a figment of your imagination. There is no sniper weapon capable of penitrating a tanks armor. Even the largest AMRs only use a 20mm projectile, far from what's needed to penitrate a tank's armor. Anti-tank rifles passed from the inventories of most armies in the early days of WWII. Again, your statement is either ignorant of the facts or a joke.

And the Discovery Channel is simply not a good source.



Almost anything's better than the current M-4. The M-16A4 could be made better if the went back to the something like original rifling (designed to cause tumbling) and upped the caliber to 6.5 or 6.8 mm. But a new design in one of those calibers, and incorporating new improvements would be even better.

Responce in red


The age of ships and the poor availability of replacement parts makes it increasingly difficult to keep the ships operating.
This doesn't seem to be a problem for other navies or older ships in the USN is this a USCG issue?

As you can see from the part of my post right after that, I am aware of that. But there are a lot of people who think they should be completely independent of the Navy. I think this is a bad idea, essentially creating another Army.The role of the Army and Marines while very different do have areas of overlap especially in sustained campaigns

We need less Marines, imho. At any rate, they are not building it because we need more, they are building it because the Marines are not doing what they were originally supposed to anymore. They days of Marines sniping from the riggining are long gone, the Corp has evolved.They are becoming more and more of a land-only force,This is a misconception on your part relying on the Navy only for transport (Something most Marines I've talked to have no problem with). And most modern ships do maintain a marine force,Only carriers, command ships and subtenders have a Marine Detachment. Only "gator freightors" carry Marines in number but they are only rotated in. the Marines just are not providing enough in the Navy's opinion.Then Navy needs to deploy additional Marines, and make provissions for maintaining a Marine detachment on every ship.

I am aware of that, and no where in my post did I say otherwise. I just think they need to do a lot less of it and transfer most of that to the Army, to keep the roles between services defined, and I think the Army needs to stop having something to lean on.The roles are different and I don't see the Army leaning on the Marines anymore than the Navy does.

Highly innaccurate, the Iowas in Desert Storm were accurate to within meters of thier targets.With cruise missles ! The 16 in guns are not that accurate and poorly suited to modern warfare. The 1980's refit did little for the main batteries it did provide helo's and missles how ever. Rewind 30years to Vietnam the huge area of effect and long shore line made it an ideal location for it's use. If you want to use 16 in guns in an urban envirioment expect a great deal of collateral damage. The only benifit they still have is the impact on morale. It does not use 50+ year old technology, only the very absics of it are 50+ years old, the Iowas were extensively modernised in the '80s. The Navy currently has a serious (and acknowledged) lack of fire support ability, yet continues to equip its ship with the inferior 5'' weapon that caused it. The Battleships may not be the prime weapon to fill this gap, but it is the only quick one we have. Not to mention the devestating effect they have on enemy morale, or did the Vietnamese demand the withdrawal of the New Jersey before continuinig peace talks because it was causing big waves.

That would be fine if we weren't relying on the Army to do most of the fighting and operations. I can have one working brake on my car, that won't help me if I have to stop quickly.

No, they are thier for amphibious assaults, Naval base security, and ship-to-shore operations. Being sent into a landlocked country to establish a forward base is not a Marine job.
100 years ago maybe but today's Marine Corp has taken on this mission as it is a "good fit" with its existing missions. Marines foward deployed on float can and are ready to take on any mission at a moments notice something the Army simply can't do, unless you want the Army to go on floats too.



Actually, they need a replacement for the A-10. It is highly effective, but I'm sure a lot more could be done on a modern frame than simply making more of these valuable craft.Well neither is going to happen as the Air Farce would rather spend its $ on fast movers And the B-52 might MIGHT! It was designed to bomb Japan from California, DURING WWII!!!need replacement, but it doesn't need it as immediately as the other branches need reform. The Air Force is at least seeming to make more progress than the other branches. But right now, the Air Force is performing its missions a whole lot more satisfactorily than others, except in terms of identification,Too many high speed high altitude aircraft to properly support troops on the ground but that is a whole different matter. Though to be fair, it could be because thier mission in the new type of war is not that different than its former Cold War missions, except in a Strategic sense.

Ditch the 5.56 in favor of... I dunno... .308 NATO, perhaps? And drop 9mm in favor of the .45 ACP.

The 6.8mm SPC has better accuracy and morer stopping/killing power at longer range than the 5.56mm N. It apparantly matches the stopping/killing power of the 7.62mm N out to 600m. SOCOM units testing it in Afghanistan are reported to like it quite a lot.

The 6.5 "Grendel" is also a cartridge that has support among the knowledgable rank and file.

And the venerable M1911A1 .45 has reappeared as the MEU (SOC) pistol (http://www.hqmc.usmc.mil/factfile.nsf/0/d6a3fc7de02523fe8525627c006c5814?OpenDocument). Never ever let anyone tell you the USMC is stupid. ;)

And since both Unspeakable and The Sword and Sheild brought it up, yeah, a replacement for the A-10 would be a good investment.

And yes, when I said 20mm, I had forgotten about the XM109. But that's nowhere near able to penitrate tank armor. It's supposed to have 2.5 times the penitration of .50 SLAP, and that's in the range of penitrating light armored vehicles, not tanks.

As for the keyholeing, it is my understanding that yes the cartridge is also a key factor, but that the tighter twist of the M16A2 reduced this in order to increase accuracy at range.

Whoa nellie. Not the entire US military, just the USMC. The Army needs a big build up. Look back at my OP - where I talk about why we need to double the number of active divisions.

We do need to focus on a certain amount of lighter operations. And to some degree, that's what has been happening with SOCOM.

As for why Latin America hates the US, it's a whole heck of a lot more complicated. (But lets not get into that hijack. ;))

The military we need now needs to be able to handle a number of brushfire wars plus a largish conflict, so we need a balanced force, not a lighter one.

You're right. Like I said, I don't know that much about the military, but I make guesses on it. In any case, an entire Expeditionary Force is in Iraq at all times. I believe they have the Western Part, which is most restive, anyhow. But if the military is serious about counterinsurgency, they should move the Marines into Baghdad. They have the experience to offer security, and can do so with far more people in a smaller area. Besides, when it comes to security of such things like politicians, I trust the Marines more. That's one reason why they are used at US embassies.

What I would like to see is an area where the military can hold live fire drills without environmentalists getting in the way.

What I would like to see is an area where the military can hold live fire drills without environmentalists getting in the way.
There's a way of avoiding that. It's called Nevada. About two thirds of the state is owned by the federal government. Most of that is a bombing range and a few small bases. And before you ask, no, Area 51 never existed. Really. The guy in the funny uniforms with the M-16s told me so :cool: .

Do you have any stat on the Grendal or 6.8mm ?
I used to think .45 was the ONLY caliber for a pistol but some of the .40 are rather impressive.


The 6.8mm SPC has better accuracy and morer stopping/killing power at longer range than the 5.56mm N. It apparantly matches the stopping/killing power of the 7.62mm N out to 600m. SOCOM units testing it in Afghanistan are reported to like it quite a lot.

The 6.5 "Grendel" is also a cartridge that has support among the knowledgable rank and file.

And the venerable M1911A1 .45 has reappeared as the MEU (SOC) pistol (http://www.hqmc.usmc.mil/factfile.nsf/0/d6a3fc7de02523fe8525627c006c5814?OpenDocument). Never ever let anyone tell you the USMC is stupid. ;)

And since both Unspeakable and The Sword and Sheild brought it up, yeah, a replacement for the A-10 would be a good investment.

And yes, when I said 20mm, I had forgotten about the XM109. But that's nowhere near able to penitrate tank armor. It's supposed to have 2.5 times the penitration of .50 SLAP, and that's in the range of penitrating light armored vehicles, not tanks.

As for the keyholeing, it is my understanding that yes the cartridge is also a key factor, but that the tighter twist of the M16A2 reduced this in order to increase accuracy at range.

There's a way of avoiding that. It's called Nevada. About two thirds of the state is owned by the federal government. Most of that is a bombing range and a few small bases. And before you ask, no, Area 51 never existed. Really. The guy in the funny uniforms with the M-16s told me so :cool: .
unfortunatly, most bases and training camps can't send their people to Nevada (not without upping the cost). and Nevada can only supply one general type of terrain for combat drills.

Whoa nellie. Not the entire US military, just the USMC. The Army needs a big build up. Look back at my OP - where I talk about why we need to double the number of active divisions.

We do need to focus on a certain amount of lighter operations. And to some degree, that's what has been happening with SOCOM.

As for why Latin America hates the US, it's a whole heck of a lot more complicated. (But lets not get into that hijack. ;))

The military we need now needs to be able to handle a number of brushfire wars plus a largish conflict, so we need a balanced force, not a lighter one.



Agreed.



Agreed.



See Lotus Puppy's comments.



Still in inventory. The media was screaming about US forces using Napalm in Iraq (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030810-napalm-iraq01.htm) just a short time ago. And don't forget the shit storm that got kicked up when WP was used in Fallujah.



WTF??? Absolutely not.



At least for the short term fix in Iraq.

Heh, I had no clue WP and Napalm was used in Fallujah.

Carpet bombing? It's great. It could have been used to great effect in Somalia had Clinton had the balls to let the Mil use it. There are even areas in Fallujah and Iraq in general that could use some CB.

Unspeakable, here ya go.
Review of both:
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200512022.asp

6.5 Grendel:
http://www.alexanderarms.com/website/id22.html (manufacturer)
http://www.65grendel.com/
http://www.65grendel.com/faq.htm

6.8 SPC
forum discussion of 6.8mm SPC (http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=78;t=000512#000000)
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=383

And finally a comparitive ballistics table (in PDF format) for the 5.56mm N, 2 loadings of the 7.62mm N, the 6.8mm SPC, and three loadings of the 6.5mm Grendel:
http://www.65grendel.com/graphics/grendelballistics.pdf



Carpet bombing? It's great. It could have been used to great effect in Somalia had Clinton had the balls to let the Mil use it. There are even areas in Fallujah and Iraq in general that could use some CB.

To what end? The functional purpose of carpet bombing has been entirely replaced by presicion munitions.

How Does the US Improve its Military?



Outsource it to India....

B-52s need something doing with them. Most are slowly coming apart at the seams (50's machine, not good).

I'd bet you could make a far smaller machine that can do the same job now carpet bombing is tactically unviable.

Isn't the JSF meant to be having a variant with the GAU-8 on to replace the A-10?

B-52s need something doing with them. Most are slowly coming apart at the seams (50's machine, not good).

I'd bet you could make a far smaller machine that can do the same job now carpet bombing is tactically unviable.

Isn't the JSF meant to be having a variant with the GAU-8 on to replace the A-10?

The BUFF has it's place and is supposed to be able to remain in service another 40 years....
Here's a good article (http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2004522a.asp) on how it's serving an extremely useful purpose in Afghanistan and Iraq. (The condensed version: It carries a metric s*** load of JDAMs and JASSMs - over 200 SDBs for example - and is able to loiter a long time, allowing for essentially air support on tap. There's no plan to replace it anytime soon, but the likely replacement will be a UCAV with even longer loiter time).

AFAIK, the BUFF is still the only platform able to carry ALCMs.

John Pike's website (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/jsf.htm) says the CTOL version of the JSF is suposed to replace it, but I'm highly sceptical.

I think the grendel sounds almost too good to be true. I'd like to see some wound trama info on it to.

Unspeakable, here ya go.
Review of both:
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200512022.asp

6.5 Grendel:
http://www.alexanderarms.com/website/id22.html (manufacturer)
http://www.65grendel.com/
http://www.65grendel.com/faq.htm

6.8 SPC
forum discussion of 6.8mm SPC (http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=78;t=000512#000000)
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=383

And finally a comparitive ballistics table (in PDF format) for the 5.56mm N, 2 loadings of the 7.62mm N, the 6.8mm SPC, and three loadings of the 6.5mm Grendel:
http://www.65grendel.com/graphics/grendelballistics.pdf





To what end? The functional purpose of carpet bombing has been entirely replaced by presicion munitions.

I think the grendel sounds almost too good to be true. I'd like to see some wound trama info on it to.

Scepticism towards what seems perfect is good, especially in regards to milkitary hardware. ;)

So far, the best I found in a quick search were some gel tests along these lines: http://www.65grendel.com/art004balltests1.htm

On the plus side: penitration seems good according to various sources and it's based on a proven big game cartridge (and humans fall into the "big game" category in my book)

On the minus side: some sources claimed to have feed problems in autoladers.

My thoughts: we need an intermediate caliber between the 5.56mm N and 7.62mm N. We'll probably end up with something in the 6,5mm to 7mm range. Beyond that? I doubt the military will get exactly what it needs. (And that goes for almost every single suggestion I've made.)