Tango01 | 23 Apr 2016 10:49 p.m. PST |
"In the Old Testament book of Judges, the Almighty tasks Gideon with leading the Israelites against their oppressor, the Midianites. In assembling an Israelite army, the Almighty commands Gideon to reduce his numbers. Gideon obeys and ultimately triumphs with the remaining force of three hundred men employing an elaborate ruse. Reducing the size of an armed force seems counterintuitive, but, as the story illustrates, organizational design, and not end strength, is critical to military effectiveness. In the present day, headlines are replete with American Army leadership warning of risks arising from the reduction in the service's end strength. Unfortunately, Army leadership indicated the risks could only be addressed by providing the service with more resources, namely appropriation dollars to afford additional personnel and new equipment. Given the Department of the Army's record in managing prior manpower increases and modernization programs, Congress is right to be skeptical as to whether simply providing more of both would best minimize the risks raised by the service's leadership…" Full text here link Amicalement Armand |
Navy Fower Wun Seven | 24 Apr 2016 1:47 a.m. PST |
No! In my 23 years experience of dealing with politicians and procurement, once you think you've agreed to the 'smaller more capable' solution, that invariably gets translated by Treasury civil servants as 'Smaller and less capabable'… |
GarrisonMiniatures | 24 Apr 2016 1:51 a.m. PST |
It's a question of balance – smaller, more lethal armies are great when you are fighting limited wars, but if you have to occupy large tracts of land or are engaged in several areas then you run out of people. You have different operational requirements, you need a high-low mix to cope with that. Something that perhaps the Air Force and Navy have lost track of. Cost, of course, is another issue – a small, lethal army is expensive to train. Any losses cost a lot in both financial terms and in the effect it has on available manpower – you just can't afford to take casualties which means you are restricted in the risks you can take – and in war you have to take risks. |
Dye4minis | 24 Apr 2016 2:17 a.m. PST |
The Army now is smaller than at the beginning of WWII! (And it has been ordered to get even smaller!) |
John Treadaway | 24 Apr 2016 5:45 a.m. PST |
Two things: 1) as others have said, horses for courses. One size does not fit all. 2) using the old testament for military strategic guidance is probably not the position I'd start with… John T |
Legion 4 | 24 Apr 2016 6:28 a.m. PST |
The ARMY is already pretty small … regardless if allowed to be employed properly it is very effective. However, smaller size limits it force projection capabilities among others abilities. Good points JT … |
jpattern2 | 24 Apr 2016 6:29 a.m. PST |
Old Testament strategy: "The first thing we do is, scrap everything except the trumpets." |
Old Glory | 24 Apr 2016 6:49 a.m. PST |
If you read history you will see that the mob always wins. The barbarian finally overcame Rome, (give Rome credit though,they did hang on the longest). The Allies over ran Naploleons vaunted French Army. The Union defeated lee and his Confederates. Hitler and his, still admired and praised army- so it seems to me anyway -- was crushed by the hoards. Just to mention a few. Regards Russ Dunaway |
Bangorstu | 24 Apr 2016 7:08 a.m. PST |
Depends what you need an army for. If you want it for quick 'get-in, get-out' operations then small armies will do. But if you ever feel the need to go toe-to-toe with someone with a large army, or need to pacify a large area for some length of time, you'll need basic numbers. The problem the British had in Iraq wasn't a lack of ability, it was simply sending a division to do the job of a Corps. |
Legion 4 | 24 Apr 2016 7:12 a.m. PST |
A military needs to be prepared for all options … too small does not lend itself to that … |
Bangorstu | 24 Apr 2016 7:25 a.m. PST |
But it also needs to be affordable. Western nations seem to have a desire to gold-plate everything. |
McKinstry | 24 Apr 2016 7:26 a.m. PST |
I believe one of the better quotes floating around about size versus quality is "At some point, quantity has a quality all its' own." |
GarrisonMiniatures | 24 Apr 2016 8:11 a.m. PST |
'Western nations seem to have a desire to gold-plate everything.' Which pretty much sums up a lot of what I've over quite a few topics. |
Legion 4 | 24 Apr 2016 8:24 a.m. PST |
As we have said many times … It's all about the … |
doug redshirt | 24 Apr 2016 8:36 a.m. PST |
So why do we need a larger Army? We are surrounded by oceans, that is what a Navy and Air Force are for. Canada has less military then the US has cops. Mexico is not about to rearm and invade us. Actually having a smaller military discourages you from sticking your nose in every little hot spot in the world. Makes you really think before you do something stupid and may regret later. Not saying we shouldn't keep up a well trained reserve and guard force or very well trained, payed and equipped active forces either. Just not as many active forces. Politicians stop and think before going to war if they have to draft a large number of voters to fight a war. I prefer my elected officials to stop and think sometimes. |
GarrisonMiniatures | 24 Apr 2016 9:23 a.m. PST |
'So why do we need a larger Army?' Is actually a reasonable question. Go back to the 1950s. If the US had, for example, supported the UK and France at Suez instead of forcing them out of the Middle East, would the Middle East have been more stable now? Don't know. If the US had brokered peace in Vietnam and allowed the Nationalists – who were not particularly communist at first – would Vietnam be an ally now? Don't know, though this one probably – Vietnam was soon fighting China. Europe, yes. That was a direct concern to the US against a power that could seriously damage the US. But really, perhaps the US was too concerned about the global communist threat and as a result helped to set up the modern world. Less intervention – or more thoughtful intervention – perhaps lots of the current enemies wouldn't be. Who knows? Today? Same thing applies. Perhaps the US and the West are interfering too much in national or regional affairs. We aren't really targeting the worst regimes because they're the worst. Some of the worst regimes are allies. If we really want to intervene we need to do it properly, which means accepting lots of soldiers actually going in and accepting the inevitable casualties. Hal hearted doesn't work. On that basis – if the US and the West aren't going to go in in a serious fashion then they don't need massive armies. They need armies to match likely major threats and let allies sort out their own regional problems. |
15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 24 Apr 2016 10:14 a.m. PST |
This isn't anything new and has been an ongoing trend. The reality is that large armies haven't been employed since Gulf War II and the invasion of Afghanistan, and if we are of the opinion that they were unnecessary we can go all the way back to the First Gulf War in 1991. The US Army has been deployed in smaller packets in our ongoing and mostly secret War on Terror. It has evolved into a flexible force that increasingly relies on special operations and the ability to deploy them anywhere around the world on short notice. A large army that relies on brute strength and numbers has been gradually replaced with a leaner army. Remember those "Army of One" commercials?: youtu.be/vA8GsHBPJIU And before you think this necessarily means the US will be less interventionist, think again. The US has more forces around the world than at any time in her history. These forces are deployed mostly in the shadows as part of our War on Terror. We are in effect fighting wars without a declaration of war and without public debate or scrutiny in the name of national security. So, if anything, having a smaller army actually conforms to a more interventionist strategy. |
Weasel | 24 Apr 2016 11:38 a.m. PST |
Big, Strong and Cheap. Pick 2. |
Rod I Robertson | 24 Apr 2016 11:43 a.m. PST |
Kyoteblue worote: " We do need to change the way we fight wars, and use smarter methods." And/Or just fight fewer wars and put the money saved into rebuilding and redesigning the American economy to create many more jobs which pay good middle-class wages for millions of Americans. Then with the expanded tax base build a better armed forces for a smaller share of the growing GDP. That way everyone benefits from sharing in a bigger pie to slice up. Doug Redshirt +1 Garrison Minatures +1 28mm Fanatik wrote: " And before you think this necessarily means the US will be less interventionist, think again. The US has more forces around the world than at any time in her history. These forces are deployed mostly in the shadows as part of our War on Terror. We are in effect fighting wars without a declaration of war and without public debate or scrutiny in the name of national security. So, if anything, having a smaller army actually conforms to a more interventionist strategy." Regrettably +! Rod Robertson. |
troopwo | 24 Apr 2016 1:51 p.m. PST |
Didn't Shinseki try that twenty years ago? The rest of NATO has been downsizing since the cold war is over, since the seventies, judging on defense spending. Tango, don't forget that God ordered Gideon to use so few troops because He, God that is, wanted everyone to know that the victory was only because of Him, and not due to the force or size of the Isreali army. |
foxweasel | 24 Apr 2016 2:51 p.m. PST |
Special Forces are only really special in small wars. In nation on nation conflicts they are just bit part players, think of Gulf war 1 (desert storm) they did great work in preventing Scud attacks but the end result would have been the same regardless. We need to be prepared for large scale conflict fighting a numerically superior enemy, that still needs lots of troops, at the moment technology can't replace the large amounts of aggressive men required to defeat such an enemy. |
Dye4minis | 24 Apr 2016 2:58 p.m. PST |
troopwo: Please note that Tango has not yet stated what he thinks or believes. This is another one of his "look what I found" posts and no original thought nor comment made as to why he posted it in the first place! So don't expect any comment from him regarding your thoughts to him other than "I'm glad you liked it, Boys." and/or a Smiley face. |
Legion 4 | 24 Apr 2016 5:02 p.m. PST |
We need to be prepared for large scale conflict fighting a numerically superior enemy, that still needs lots of troops, at the moment technology can't replace the large amounts of aggressive men required to defeat such an enemy. +1 … agree totally … |
Rod I Robertson | 24 Apr 2016 8:38 p.m. PST |
Given that Canada and Mexico are the only countries in a position to threaten the continental USA with conventional military land forces and given that both of these countries are completely militarily impotent and cannot wage large scale war, the US does not NEED a huge standing conventional army. The large army is a tool for promoting and protecting American interests abroad but is not a necessity and it is inefficient compared to other branches as a force projector. By down-sizing the regular Army and increasing the National Guard and Reserves America could invest more in its Navy including Marines, its Air Force, it's Strategic Reconnaissance and it's ballistic missile and ABM programmes. The Navy and Air Force are far more useful as tools for force projection then a large standing Army. Withdrawal of American land forces from most places around the world except the ROK and Europe would be a good thing for reducing tensions around the globe. Prepositioning military equipment for the more minor NATO allies to use in Europe in the event of a large scale war would bolster the defenses of Europe without antagonizing Russia so much and would encourage countries in Europe which don't have well developed arms industries like Poland or Hungary to buy American made weapons systems for training and domestic use. This would allow America to protect Europe while not risking so many American lives. This does not include the prepositioned weapons for American use which should be left in place. By down sizing US Army forces you could free up equipment for such a programme and reduce the human foot print in NATO commitments. Savings from a smaller Army could be used to expand the training of reserves and Guard units, to upgrade the kit of the newer, leaner Army and to fund the expansion of the Navy, Air Force, etc. A smaller army would greatly reduce the legacy costs of the Armed Forces in the long run since the Army is necessarily the most labour intensive branch of the Armed Services. Cheers. Rod Robertson. |
Old Wolfman | 25 Apr 2016 7:33 a.m. PST |
Of course,Gideon had a very special weapon to begin with. |
Legion 4 | 25 Apr 2016 7:33 a.m. PST |
A smaller army would greatly reduce the legacy costs of the Armed Forces in the long run since the Army is necessarily the most labour intensive branch of the Armed Services. Why do you think that is ? Why does the Infantry generally suffers up to 75% causalities ? Because they are large in numbers and they can do things the other services can't … Seize and hold ground for one. Aircraft and ships can't do that. The can certainly support the ground forces, we wouldn't have it any other way ! That is the way combined arms works. Infantry, Armor, FA, etc. supported by aircraft and naval assets. It's been that way for some time. I'm sure you read about it. It was in all the papers … And if we use aircraft and naval missiles, etc., to their fullest capabilities then you and others will complain about CD and making more of the enemy. Really you idealists, academics, etc.,. who never have been on the ground in a military unit want it both ways. Because IMO … you just refuse to understand the reality of the situation. We fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. |
Weasel | 25 Apr 2016 7:37 a.m. PST |
I know plenty of libertarians who'd argue that being unable to take and hold ground would be an advantage to the country, not a drawback ;-) |
Legion 4 | 25 Apr 2016 7:40 a.m. PST |
|
Tango01 | 25 Apr 2016 10:48 a.m. PST |
"troopwo: Please note that Tango has not yet stated what he thinks or believes. This is another one of his "look what I found" posts and no original thought nor comment made as to why he posted it in the first place! So don't expect any comment from him regarding your thoughts to him other than "I'm glad you liked it, Boys." and/or a Smiley face" My dear friend… you are wrong… I made some comments …when I have wanted to do … Even that, remember that english is not my language… even not the second one… So, when I read you in spanish or other idiom … reviewing a topic that you are not expert or are not at the height of what others have to say … I promise you I would write here no less than five pages in English … I enjoy a lot reading what people said about threads which they are of interest to me … and as I know … that does not violate any rule … as is your comment … it's rude, aggressive and out of place … but is not penalized and surely you can not fail to make more of them … about me!. See?… I can wrote some comments when I want… (smile) Amicalement Armand |
Legion 4 | 25 Apr 2016 2:30 p.m. PST |
Is that a new TMP/Bills' rule ? You have to comment on a Tango post ?!? |
Rod I Robertson | 25 Apr 2016 3:46 p.m. PST |
Legion 4: I think you're being a little hyperbolic above. I am not saying disband the Army. I am saying reduce its size. Build in better efficiencies to get a better teeth-to-tail ratio and substitute more Marine operations for Army ones. America should reduce the size of the Army to constrain military interventionists in the government and the Pentagon from abusing America's good name and fiscal viability from unnecessary military adventurism. I am lost on the whole 75% casualties among infantry argument. While that may be true for some battalions, when has the American Army lost 75% of its front line infantry troops? I can't think of a time. Maybe in the early parts Revolutionary War or the ACW. Losses in the Canadian Infantry and Motor Infantry Battalions were very high in WWII, far higher than in the US Army on average but I don't think off the top of my head that they ever reached 75% across the board. Yes, there were regiments like the Black Watch who sustained very high casualty rates and there was always serious shortages of French Canadian soldiers for the French regiments, but 75% across the whole army seems very high. I'll do more research to see if I'm wrong, but I am skeptical at this point. If you have a smaller army then perhaps you will learn to avoid unnecessary wars and interventions. Then over-extended US soldiers will not have to seize and hold ground you're just going to abandon some few years later when the political winds change. It is a crime above all others to waste the lives and health of loyal soldiers unnecessarily. A smaller Army would force the US to better guard it's resources for when it really needs them, in a war that poses an existential threat. It would not be able to squander the lives of soldiers and guardsmen on politically motivated operations which are likely doomed to fail even if the military is overwhelmingly successful. The US economy cannot afford the 4+% of GDP military spending that you are expending yearly now. The deficits and debt it is creating is a greater threat to the country than all the terrorists, drug cartels, tin-pot dictators and wild-eyed revolutionaries in the world combined. That level of expenditures does not serve the interests of the American electorate, only the interests of certain very power concentrations of capital and political influence. It's time for profligate US military spending to be rationally and responsibly reduced or the economy and the country will go -up within one or two generations. Cheers. Rod Robertson. P.S.: I don't diminish you for your military experience, so why do you insist upon using the word "academic" in what seems to me to be a pejorative way? Just say'in it p's me off. Continue if you must, but know that I find it insulting. |
Rod I Robertson | 25 Apr 2016 5:50 p.m. PST |
Legion 4: Your wording confused me. You wrote, " Why does the Infantry generally suffers up to 75% causalities ?" That is not true. What I think you meant to say is 75% of all casualties suffered are infantry branch casualties. That is close to true as I found the figure of 73.2%. But total casualties are never as high as 75% even in the meat-grinders of the ACW or WWI. So at least that is sorted. Rod Robertson. |
Rod I Robertson | 25 Apr 2016 5:57 p.m. PST |
Tango quoted: "In the Old Testament book of Judges, the Almighty tasks Gideon with leading the Israelites against their oppressor, the Midianites." I wonder if their code phrase for the operation was 'Torah, Torah, Torah!'? Apologies if I have offended you but I have resisted this since Tango's OP two days ago, but now I cannot resist anymore; I'm so weak! Cheers. Rod Robertson. |
Legion 4 | 26 Apr 2016 7:13 a.m. PST |
What I think you meant to say is 75% of all casualties suffered are infantry branch casualties. Yes that is what I meant, I'm glad you corrected my wording. BUT also remember casualties includes KIA, WIA, MIA & POW. Some US Spec ops units in SE Asia suffered 100% losses. Meaning in this case everyone in the unit was WIA'd or KIA'd … You can believe what you like about down sizing the US military as you like. I remember at times only having 17 out of 36-40 in my Rifle Plt in the 101. And the Rifle Company was short a whole Infantry Plt as well. My Mech Company at times only deploying 63 out of 112. It's usually hard to do your mission in many cases anyway. It makes it even harder to do if short of troops and also equipment. My Mech Company was authorized 32 NVGs, we had 5 and at any given time 2-3 were in down … All my 14 M60 MGs were rebuilds and extremely prone to jamming, etc. … And Note both my Plt and Company were part of the ARMY's Rapid Deployment Forces, the 18th ABN Crops. So I'm not exactly excited about another Cdr today having to deal with any such shortages when facing butchers like Deash, AQ, the Taliban, etc. … Of course you can always call in CAS to help out. But then some will complain about CD. So you can't please everybody. But I know, and I'm sure others in command today, would feel the same. I rather not loose any of my soldiers because I'm short assets or someone is afraid of causing too much CD. Maybe they can write their family and tell them why their son, father, etc., died. I don't diminish you for your military experience, so why do you insist upon using the word "academic" in what seems to me to be a pejorative way? Just say'in it p's me off. Continue if you must, but know that I find it insulting. Sorry … I guess you can't please everybody. You choose to be p's,. I can't control that … only you can … Again, Sorry … That was not my intent … |