The new Army

[ThunderKiss1965]

Every CSM I met during my time in service all seemed to have Chobham armour instead of skin. They were that tough, even the females. They had to be in a male dominated military, but now society is turning them all into a bunch of whiny, privilege seekers.

Good luck winning wars in the future. Might as well turn our armed services into one big community out reach program.

Army CSM Ignores Regulations And Cries About Being Bullied

 

[The Great Goose]

So weve gone from unenglish draining bs to PC. why not just be old fashion stoic english?

it conquered the world.

 

[Fenton Lum]

The empire is global.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

The empire is global.

What ?

 

[longknife]

The empire is global.

What ?

Did you really expect anything different from that poster?

 

[Fenton Lum]

The empire is global.

What ?

Did you really expect anything different from that poster?

Are we not pretty much everywhere?

 

[Silent Warrior]

Not only that, but the military is at it's lowest manning level since the 1940's. Not since Carter has our military been so weak in manpower. Now wonder so many little countries are thumbing their noses at the US. They know we no longer have the leadership and military to be effective.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Not only that, but the military is at it's lowest manning level since the 1940's. Not since Carter has our military been so weak in manpower. Now wonder so many little countries are thumbing their noses at the US. They know we no longer have the leadership and military to be effective.

So we need both a global presence and instant strike capability.

How about spending, how are those levels trending? And compare with the rest of the planet combined I wonder? How many bases in other nations? How would we like other nation's military bases on our "homeland" I wonder?

 

[rightwinger]

Not only that, but the military is at it's lowest manning level since the 1940's. Not since Carter has our military been so weak in manpower. Now wonder so many little countries are thumbing their noses at the US. They know we no longer have the leadership and military to be effective.

Modern militaries do not rely on manpower

It is lethality of your force not the number of soldiers or sailors

 

[rightwinger]

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

 

[Silent Warrior]

Not only that, but the military is at it's lowest manning level since the 1940's. Not since Carter has our military been so weak in manpower. Now wonder so many little countries are thumbing their noses at the US. They know we no longer have the leadership and military to be effective.

So we need both a global presence and instant strike capability.

How about spending, how are those levels trending? And compare with the rest of the planet combined I wonder? How many bases in other nations? How would we like other nation's military bases on our "homeland" I wonder?

Apparently you prefer any fighting to be done on our soil. I prefer to stop an aggressor before he gets here.

 

[rightwinger]

Not only that, but the military is at it's lowest manning level since the 1940's. Not since Carter has our military been so weak in manpower. Now wonder so many little countries are thumbing their noses at the US. They know we no longer have the leadership and military to be effective.

So we need both a global presence and instant strike capability.

How about spending, how are those levels trending? And compare with the rest of the planet combined I wonder? How many bases in other nations? How would we like other nation's military bases on our "homeland" I wonder?

Apparently you prefer any fighting to be done on our soil. I prefer to stop an aggressor before he gets here.

No aggressor is capable of invading our soil
Hasn't happened in two hundred years

 

[Silent Warrior]

Not only that, but the military is at it's lowest manning level since the 1940's. Not since Carter has our military been so weak in manpower. Now wonder so many little countries are thumbing their noses at the US. They know we no longer have the leadership and military to be effective.

Modern militaries do not rely on manpower

It is lethality of your force not the number of soldiers or sailors

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.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Not only that, but the military is at it's lowest manning level since the 1940's. Not since Carter has our military been so weak in manpower. Now wonder so many little countries are thumbing their noses at the US. They know we no longer have the leadership and military to be effective.

So we need both a global presence and instant strike capability.

How about spending, how are those levels trending? And compare with the rest of the planet combined I wonder? How many bases in other nations? How would we like other nation's military bases on our "homeland" I wonder?

Apparently you prefer any fighting to be done on our soil. I prefer to stop an aggressor before he gets here.

We have an aggressor?

 

[rightwinger]

Not only that, but the military is at it's lowest manning level since the 1940's. Not since Carter has our military been so weak in manpower. Now wonder so many little countries are thumbing their noses at the US. They know we no longer have the leadership and military to be effective.

Modern militaries do not rely on manpower

It is lethality of your force not the number of soldiers or sailors

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

 

[Silent Warrior]

Not only that, but the military is at it's lowest manning level since the 1940's. Not since Carter has our military been so weak in manpower. Now wonder so many little countries are thumbing their noses at the US. They know we no longer have the leadership and military to be effective.

Modern militaries do not rely on manpower

It is lethality of your force not the number of soldiers or sailors

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.

 

[rightwinger]

Not only that, but the military is at it's lowest manning level since the 1940's. Not since Carter has our military been so weak in manpower. Now wonder so many little countries are thumbing their noses at the US. They know we no longer have the leadership and military to be effective.

Modern militaries do not rely on manpower

It is lethality of your force not the number of soldiers or sailors

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

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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.

 

[Silent Warrior]

Not only that, but the military is at it's lowest manning level since the 1940's. Not since Carter has our military been so weak in manpower. Now wonder so many little countries are thumbing their noses at the US. They know we no longer have the leadership and military to be effective.

Modern militaries do not rely on manpower

It is lethality of your force not the number of soldiers or sailors

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.

 

[rightwinger]

Modern militaries do not rely on manpower

It is lethality of your force not the number of soldiers or sailors

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