"U.S. Adversaries Are Becoming Better Trained" Topic

"For several decades, the American military has relied on its superior training to ensure victory in its campaigns across the globe. Often far from home during extended missions abroad, the U.S. military planning assumption is that any opposing force, more often than not, will heavily outnumber it. Making sure that U.S. troops, although fewer in number, are better trained than their enemies has been one of the keys to guaranteeing success — or at least, staving off defeat.

But the absolute advantage in training that the U.S. military has come to depend on since the late 1970s is no longer as certain as it once was. Russia and China, recognizing the value of highly trained troops, have begun ramping up and revamping their training programs in recent years. Though they will not be able to overtake the United States in conventional military dominance anytime soon, the United States will have to prepare to face adversaries that are better trained than any it has encountered since World War II.

With decades of global military deployments and campaigns under its belt, the U.S. military has developed a strong foundation in institutional warfare. On average, across any given force worldwide, one can argue that no soldiers, airmen or sailors are better trained than those in the U.S. military, give the size of the organization. Indeed, the current generation of American soldiers may very well be the best the United States has ever fielded…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Perhaps we should stop training and arming our enemies.

Always thought that was a bad idea, a decade, or more ago. Looks like I was right.

Correction: arming and training them.

Another factor to closely monitor is the professionalism of the NCO corps. IMO, a military lives and dies by how effective its career NCOs are. In this area, Russia has a slight leg up on China at least: it has a significant minority of combat-experienced personnel from the 90's through today (Chechnya-Dagestan-Georgia-Ukraine). While Russia's performance in Georgia was definitely sub-par, the VDV's NCOs were noted for their initiative and small-unit tactical competence.

I'm really interested to get a glimpse at the PLA's NCO schools…

Agree!

Amicalement
Armand

Well, the US [and NATO +] trained the Afghans, the US and other Western Powers had/are training the Iraqis [AGAIN !]. And don't forget the US trained 50 or so Syrian Anti-Assad, Anti-Deash rebels. So it's more then just good training, weapons, support, etc. … The three forces I mentioned certainly, IMO, are good examples of old sayings : "You can lead a horse to water, etc. … Or the opposite of, "teach a man to fish, etc. … Again, IMO, regardless of training, arms, etc. … They have generally proven to be sub-standard soldiers.

In FiveCore, we do it by giving them a number of "Despair" points.

The enemy can cash those in at any time to roll an extra Shock die against you.

You can also give less activations than the enemy gets.
If I activate 2 squads per turn and you activate 3, it gets rough going pretty quickly.

Te military expertise for ISIS mainly comes from ex members of Saddams Republican Guard, so the USA didn't train them.

And, as an aside, my mate from China says their military is awful (not that he has any relevant experience) as it's ridden with the usual corruption and bureaucracy.

Simple fact is, the USA doesn't have a monopoly of military competence and simple Darwinism will ensure that after more than a decade of fighting, people will get better at it.

So how would you show the lack of motivation in your war games ????

Come on, there are a plethora of rules that demonstrates the quality of troops. I've been playing wargames since the '60s, from AH, SPI/S&T, Conflict, GDW, etc. … Even in GZG's DS and other Sci-fi games, there are rules for troop effectiveness. …

Te military expertise for ISIS mainly comes from ex members of Saddams Republican Guard, so the USA didn't train them.

Never said they we … once again you try to put words in my month and twist them to suit your polarized beliefs.

Simple fact is, the USA doesn't have a monopoly of military competence and simple Darwinism will ensure that after more than a decade of fighting, people will get better at it.

No it doesn't mean the US have a monopoly on military competence. There are many good standing armies from the West/NATO, etc. on the planet. But once again you take the opportunity to try to down grade the USA. That is your predilection on any topic. Along with military competence, you have to look at the type of warfare involved. The Iraqis and many other Mid East, SW Asian, North African, etc. forces prove to be less then effective or competent in modern combined arm warfare.

… my inability to make proper paragraphs !

Plus part of these 2d & 3d string forces' only card to play is COIN type warfare. Which is based on classis guerilla/insurgent/partisan/irregular type warfare is the ability for them to move and hide among the populous. Which limits the US and other Western forces ability to use their considerable (conventional) firepower, tech, and tactics. That would significantly attrite the enemy. But at the same time the collateral damage to non-combatants and infrastructure would also play into the insurgent's/guerilla's hands. Again, based on classic unconventional/asymmetric warfare.

someone show me how to make paragraphs !

Plus the fact that the local governmental forces prove to be less than effective and competent in combating the insurgents in their own backyards. The Iraqis, the Afghans etc. have demonstrated so clearly now for over a decade. No matter how much training, support, etc. the West provides them. If this were not true. The countries of Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. would not be in the situation they are in now and have been. Their inability to clean their own houses is quite evident.

And the US military and other Western forces consistently demonstrates their ability to adapt, improvise and overcome on the battlefield as situations evolve in the conflict. And at the same time having to operate under strict ROE, etc. …

Bangorstu,

Actually, the USA probably did train them.

The USA secretly trained Iraqi Republican Guard officers and NCOs in counterinsurgency tactics at Ft. Benning during the Iran-Iraq war. Back when things looked bad for Iraq, plans were made to fight an insurgent action if Iraq was overrun by Iran.

Yes, I know that Iraq first invaded Iran.

It all comes down to the governments these armies serve. If a government lacks the political well to do what is needed to win then all the training in the world means nothing.

The Iraqi Army has shown that it ain't just political will and training that is necessary. The troops need motivation to fight, too.

Legion….

once again you try to put words in my month and twist them to suit your polarized beliefs.

Sorry to burst your egotistical bubble but I was responding to Mako.

But once again you take the opportunity to try to down grade the USA.

I don't see how pointing out that the enemy is allowed to be smart too constitutes an attack on the US armed forces….

The Iraqis are, by now, the veterans of a decade or so of hard fighting. That's going to occasionally give them the edge.

BTW, I think the Afghans have proved themselves to be much more effective than the Iraqis.

They might not be winning, but they are at least fighting, and fighting hard.

Sorry to burst your egotistical bubble but I was responding to Mako.

Wow ! You didn't take a shot at me !? That's a rarity. I'm just so used to me being your favorite target. But Mako and I do think a lot a like … so there is that …

Sigh, Legion 4 it's not always about you….

It's NOT !!!!! Kyote … what does that have to do with wargames ?

Afghanistan is the Elephants' Graveyard of empires and invaders. They are smart and adaptable fighters and despite high losses, enough have survived to create and train a new generation of resistance fighters. In Iraq the same people who run away from ISIL even when they outnumber the ISIL fighters by almost eight to one, are the folk who fight like fanatics/rabid lions when they fight for ISIL. So, while training and experience are certainly at work here, so is élan and an improving l'esprit de corps among the enemy's the US military must face.
My apologies for sounding and being pedantic but Bangorstu, this process is not Darwinian but Spencerian as it was Spencer who came up with the notion of survival of the fittest. To be Darwinian the Afghans and Iraqis would have to be reproducing at rates far higher than their immediate ecosystem can support. They would have to make love far more than war to be Darwinian!
Cheets and good gaming.
Rod Robertson.

BTW, I think the Afghans have proved themselves to be much more effective than the Iraqis.

It does not take much to be more effective than Iraqis. The ANA has not abandoned 42 M1 MBTs, 52 SP 155 FA and 2300 Hummers … like the Iraqis …

Legion4:
I don't disagree with Stu. I'm being pedantic and an arse because …, well because I am a pedantic arse! But in my defense nor am I disagreeing with you or Mako, so I am making some progress!
Cheers gents.
Rod Robertson

"Te [sic] military expertise for ISIS mainly comes from ex members of Saddams Republican Guard, so the USA didn't train them".

Sorry Bangor, we trained an awful lot of the Iraqi military, many of which were Sunni, and quite a few of those defected/ran away after/during the training, so I suspect we did provide training for at least some of them, AND pretty much the majority of their equipment too, through "incompetent intermediaries" who had no business getting our Humvees, tanks, ifvs, and self-propelled artillery.

We've done the same with the Afghans too, and a number of those trainees have even killed our troops while embedded with them, during/after said training.

No doubt, the tactics we use are noted, and shared by and amongst our enemies in the region, against us.

BTW, I think the Afghans have proved themselves to be much more effective than the Iraqis.

Afghans have been excellent fighters since the days of the Persian Empires. It's just getting them to wrap their minds around the concept of any social group larger than their tribe that is difficult.

Imagine if you asked a US citizen if they were an American and you got the answer back, "No, I'm a Blood/Crip/other street gang"

That's an Afghan.

I don't disagree with Stu. I'm being pedantic and an arse because …, well because I am a pedantic arse! But in my defense nor am I disagreeing with you or Mako, so I am making some progress!
Cheers gents.
Rod Robertson

Rod, I like fact that you know how to talk to people without being divisive, demeaning, insulting, derisive, etc., with a good sense of humor, being respectful, etc. … Some here, including myself probably, could take notice of your example. And not to go too OT, I did very much appreciate you final comments to me on another thread dealing with insurgents, etc. … So thank you overall …

Afghans have been excellent fighters since the days of the Persian Empires. It's just getting them to wrap their minds around the concept of any social group larger than their tribe that is difficult.

And there's the rub … bottom line … today … they are not doing the job for a variety of reasons. I'm sure you have heard this more than once while on active duty Lion – "No excuse, Sir !" … or "The range of an excuse it zero meters, Sir !" My take on it. Afghanis … you're frakk'd up beyond all recognition … fix it !

Just to be really pedantic… :)

The 19th century scientist we really need is Lemarck as he thought learned characteristics could be passed on to offspring which fits the situation better.

Darwinism is more about being genetically better and hence surviving more easily.

I return you all to your original programming after this soujourn through Victorian evolutionary biology.

Whenever these threads are 20+ messages long, it's usually some slapfight going on.

Bangorstu:
Touché, Sir. Your point is well taken!

Weasel:
Think with greater levity. Imagine the Three Stooges slapping, eye-poking and butt-kicking each other and you're in a better frame of reference. It's all in good fun and we get to learn stuff along the way!

Legion 4:
Thanks for your kind words.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

The 19th century scientist we really need is Lemarck as he thought learned characteristics could be passed on to offspring which fits the situation better.

Yeah, that's cultural evolution.

Whenever these threads are 20+ messages long, it's usually some slapfight going on.

Yep … the lunatics are running the asylum … It's been said here many times before … Bill PM'd me and told me to stop harassing bangorstu … !?!?!?!?!?

Thanks for your kind words.

Thank you Rod … Again we all can learn how to have an adult, dare I say "intellectual" discussion, etc., here on TMP … based on your example. But the way things are going … I'll be in the DH by sunset …