The new Army

Todays Army is smaller and much more lethal than the Army of the 1940s

It is better trained, better motivated, has much better technology and knows much more about its enemy than any time in history

We are the only remaining Superpower
Better technology means more people trained to support it, More people are needed to keep a M1 running than a Sheman.
Our troops in Korea have all that lethal tech but we called the troops on the DMZ speed bumps because in an all out invasion from the North they where supposed to hold back the tide for an hour or so. If we get into a ground war with a country like China or Russia we need the troops.

North Korea is incapable of sustaining an attack. They lack the logistics to provide food, fuel and ammo.

There will not be a ground war with either China or Russia. Both are nuclear capable
 
Our politicians are the greatest threat to our military. A recent Pentagon report was very critical of the damage politicians are doing to our military's effectiveness:

"But the 700-page report, much of it blacked out for security reasons, sheds light on how the rules are not fully understood, even by some troops on the ground, compromising the mission to stabilize the nation and defeat a worsening Islamist insurgency."
.......

"It's not a strategy and, in fact, it's a recipe for disaster in that kind of kinetic environment," said the soldier, who, like others in the report, was not identified."

"He added that his unit, whose role was to advise and assist Afghan forces without engaging in combat, asked three times for commanders to clarify the rules governing their mission."
..........

"The Green Beret complained that failure to provide clear guidance represented "moral cowardice", and that political leaders intentionally keep the mission vague."

"That allows them to "reap the rewards of success without facing the responsibility of failure," he added."

Pentagon report reveals confusion among U.S. troops over Afghan mission

Simply tragic.

.
 
The White House has seen three (3) different Secretaries of Defence resign under Obama because of frustration with the White House:

"Mr. Hagel wasn’t alone in his frustration. His upset over what he saw as slow decision-making and White House micromanagement of the Defense Department was shared by his two immediate predecessors at the Pentagon."

Resignation Capped Tense Year for Defense Secretary Hagel

.
 
Actually, I believe moral in our armed forces is at a low ebb so motivation is just not there. As far as not needing manpower, equipment can fail. The more complex the equipment, the more prone to failure. You sound like those in WW2 that said we would win with air power alone and didn't need soldiers. They were proven wrong and saying that manpower is unimportant now is just as wrong. Those who ignore history are prone to repeat it. As far as saying we are the only superpower, that is just silly.

The majority of the troops in WWII were grunts. Needed for manual labor, hauling supplies, digging ditches, peeling potatoes

Modern soldiers are better trained and much better equipped. One soldier is more lethal than ten WWII soldiers

Name a superpower anywhere close to our level

Gee, thank you for maligning WW2 soldiers. Of course our soldiers are better equipped now, but so are foreign soldiers. In fact most terrorists are better equipped than soldiers of the 40's. However, when an EMP takes out your fancy equipment and you are outnumbered 10 to one by those “grunts” you are facing, if you have kept up with your physical training at least you can bend over and kiss your butt goodbye.
Our fancy equipment is tested against HAEMP and must recover within two hours

Most soldiers are not combat soldiers. The majority are in logistics, maintenance and combat support roles......in WWII that meant manual labor

Anyone comparing the number of soldiers needed for a WWII unit to what we need today just doesn't understand modern warfare

Today we can take out a target with an unmanned drone firing a missile within three meters of the target with 100% accuracy
In WWII, we would have needed dozens of heavy bombers to take out the same target

Gosh, nothing could happen in 2 hours. That is assuming the tests were accurate, the enemy doesn't invent something we haven't tested against and only we have developed new systems.

Anyone who says we don't need the manpower doesn't understand warfare at all.

Drones truly are accurate when they work, when they don't take out civilians and are indeed an improvement over WW2 aircraft. However, they aren't indefensible and they can't hit what they can't see. You incorrectly seem to think all conflict is one on one. One drone against an army of several hundred thousand would be like spitting in the ocean trying to raise the level.

We still need manpower but significantly less than we needed 70 years ago. The nature of warfare has changed. It is lighter and more mobile. It is also more capable of detecting vulnerabilities and exploiting them

I do agree with you that we need less manpower than we did years ago. Having said that the Air Force is already short of pilots for those drones you count on and I feel the other branches have dropped too much also. I also agree that the warfare is lighter and more mobile. Unfortunately that works for both sides in a conflict. If both sides are lighter and more mobile then the one with the greatest light and mobile manpower has an advantage.



This discussion has been going on for years. Several thousand years ago Og invented the spear and said he had changed the nature of warfare because “if the spear is used properly, no can defend.” Then of course Url invented the bow and arrow and thought the same thing. This went on even up to WW2 where air power alone was supposed to win. Those who feel that way are forgetting progress works for both sides in a conflict. When you invent the ultimate weapon you should count on someone inventing the ultimate defense.
 
The majority of the troops in WWII were grunts. Needed for manual labor, hauling supplies, digging ditches, peeling potatoes

Modern soldiers are better trained and much better equipped. One soldier is more lethal than ten WWII soldiers

Name a superpower anywhere close to our level

Gee, thank you for maligning WW2 soldiers. Of course our soldiers are better equipped now, but so are foreign soldiers. In fact most terrorists are better equipped than soldiers of the 40's. However, when an EMP takes out your fancy equipment and you are outnumbered 10 to one by those “grunts” you are facing, if you have kept up with your physical training at least you can bend over and kiss your butt goodbye.
Our fancy equipment is tested against HAEMP and must recover within two hours

Most soldiers are not combat soldiers. The majority are in logistics, maintenance and combat support roles......in WWII that meant manual labor

Anyone comparing the number of soldiers needed for a WWII unit to what we need today just doesn't understand modern warfare

Today we can take out a target with an unmanned drone firing a missile within three meters of the target with 100% accuracy
In WWII, we would have needed dozens of heavy bombers to take out the same target

Gosh, nothing could happen in 2 hours. That is assuming the tests were accurate, the enemy doesn't invent something we haven't tested against and only we have developed new systems.

Anyone who says we don't need the manpower doesn't understand warfare at all.

Drones truly are accurate when they work, when they don't take out civilians and are indeed an improvement over WW2 aircraft. However, they aren't indefensible and they can't hit what they can't see. You incorrectly seem to think all conflict is one on one. One drone against an army of several hundred thousand would be like spitting in the ocean trying to raise the level.

We still need manpower but significantly less than we needed 70 years ago. The nature of warfare has changed. It is lighter and more mobile. It is also more capable of detecting vulnerabilities and exploiting them

I do agree with you that we need less manpower than we did years ago. Having said that the Air Force is already short of pilots for those drones you count on and I feel the other branches have dropped too much also. I also agree that the warfare is lighter and more mobile. Unfortunately that works for both sides in a conflict. If both sides are lighter and more mobile then the one with the greatest light and mobile manpower has an advantage.



This discussion has been going on for years. Several thousand years ago Og invented the spear and said he had changed the nature of warfare because “if the spear is used properly, no can defend.” Then of course Url invented the bow and arrow and thought the same thing. This went on even up to WW2 where air power alone was supposed to win. Those who feel that way are forgetting progress works for both sides in a conflict. When you invent the ultimate weapon you should count on someone inventing the ultimate defense.
The U.S. Currently spends 47 cents of every defense dollar spent in the world. It is not a case of the U.S. Not keeping up
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top