"Growin modern Western armies" Topic

So let me give you a hypothetical scenario in which NATO ends up in an attritional war with a foe and after 1 year has suffered very heavy casualties, with the war dragging on and no conclusion in sight.

How quickly could US and European nations grow their military forces?
Before WW1 HMS Dreadnought was completed in 1 year, these days a frigate takes 3 or 4 years from the first steel being cut to being seaworthy.

Would infantry be given six months training and handed a rifle and a couple of grenades and then herded towards the front line? Could a modern infantry battalion be rolled out as quickly as one in 1917 or 1943? Would armies change their structure so that more complex equipment and tactics are abandoned in favour of simplicity and speed?

Interested to hear your thoughts.

(Let's assume nukes are not used)

Probably someone would start considering the nuclear option.

Given the current size of NATO, the complexity of modern weapons and general lack of fitness amongst the majority of people of military age I very much doubt that an atritional war would last more than a few months before nuclear weapons were at least threatened. There would not be time to train new forces in any meaningful way and significant casualties would quickly result in strong opposition at home, with the loudest criticism being from those furthest away from the conflict.

I have to agree with that Vigilant. Lack to replacement troops, equipment, supplies, etc. and even the will at home, e.g. during Vietnam. The "War" might not last that long. And I'd think in the 1st World, i.e. US, Europe-East & West, would realized that the nuc option is not really a viable option.

And as I said, on other threads. Modern warfare just costs too much in not only blood but almost more importantly treasure. TMP link TMP link

During WW-II it took @ 1 year to draft, train, assemble and equip a US Division. The US Army had it almost down to a script and could do multiple divisions at a time. Today the re-tool of industry would make that time frame extend.

I can't think of any "modern" army that could do any better/faster (not just putting bodies and rifles in the field)

During Vietnam, Basic Training only took about 6-9 weeks depending, IIRC. But today would there be "acceptable" bodies to train today and turn into "soldiers" ?

The Pentagon studies say, about 70-75% of draft age persons, are not physically, mentally, psychologically, have a criminal record, etc., that would make them incapable/ineligible to be in the military. Of course the military could change those standards … but I'm not sure that is a good solution ?

I'd think if anything Vietnam demonstrated that society of the '60s, was not the same in many ways as it was in the '40s or even the '50s. And I'd think today the society is more like that of the '60s in some ways. Would they become soldiers and fight ? Even if they were able to pass today's military standards.

The military makes up a very small portion of the US population. Less than 1%. As it does in many/most other nations. Would the US go into a total war footing as it did in WWII ? I'm not too sure. Hopefully we will never have to find out.

You've got to remember something about ship building rates. These guys ARE NOT in a hurry. It's peacetime after all. I would imagine that if a war was going on then work crews would be working 24/7 building ships as quickly as possible. Shifts would be changed, purse strings would be loosened, and the factories would be geared up to crank out weapons, ordinance, and vehicles. Granted, modern gear is REALLY expensive, but so was WWII equipment! A M4 Sherman would cost around a million dollars in today's money.

High-tech stuff would be modified and mass production would take over. Depleted uranium would be replaced with cheaper and more easily readied materials. Smart missiles probably would get kind of dumb. You would see more Falcons than Harriers and Eagles, and the M60 and M48 would come out of storage to replace M1 losses although I would imagine that the tank plants would still crank out M1s- perhaps a cheaper corner-cutter version. Mass production would be king IMO.

I would assume that infantry would be easy enough to produce. The 1980's soldier wasn't a lot different from his 1940's granddad. The M16 can be cranked out in mass and ditto for the M203 and the M249. The US probably had thousands of M60s in reserve too. Kevlar might disappear and the M1 Steel would come back (cheaper to make I would think plus we had millions of the things in reserve). It would take just a few months to train new GIs and a year or so to rebuild the AUSA reserve divisions (which existed as mobilization frameworks during the 1980's) and to get the ANG division up to strength. Just restart the draft to build those dozens of infantry divisions. I think the cost argument doesn't match with reality. In WWII both sides spent themselves silly in both money and blood. What would make WWIII any different?

The Army probably wouldn't be too picky either for manpower. Basic training and good food turned a physically drained population from the Depression into decent soldiers.

Heck, I remember reading that the quality of the US Army's front-line infantry actually IMPROVED as the war went on because the Army was forced to clear the rear of "extras" to bring the rifle companies up to strength. That is, we kept our BEST men back in specialists jobs and put our worst in the infantry. So stronger and smarter guys replaced your basic Joe up front. Clearly we weren't putting our best and brightest up front even in WWII.

Fitness wise in WWI and WWII both sides drafted unfit troops into action. Remember the "Christmas Tree" soldiers from WWII Germany? Whole units that were unfit for anything but sitting in a trench? That's happened in the past and there is no reason why it wouldn't happen in the future. I would imagine the same would be true for my generation back in the '80's. Heck they got me into shape! Basic training has a NASTY way of getting bored and flabby kids into good shape and does it really FAST. As for druggies and lawbreakers.. really???? That's a laugh. The Army has a LONG and not so proud tradition of taking the dregs of society and turning them into soldiers. Heck, during the War of 1812 the Army was full of misfits who couldn't find work elsewhere. Into the 1970's judges were offering criminals a choice between the Army and jail. A thug from the street can stop a bullet just as easily as a nice kid from a middle class family. Both have the potential to make good soldiers with the right training and discipline. Honestly, I think a lot of us are mistaking our ideal soldier for what can really be done.

But what you would get is an army that looked pretty much like the army of 1945. Mostly infantry with rifles and MGs, towed artillery, trucks to move them, and older tanks to support them. I would imagine that the M113 would be king in the mechanized infantry units. They were/are cheap and easy to make. Infantry divisions would get lighter and the mech infantry would be found in the armored formations. Like WWII IMO.

If it is full on war then it would go on, but with high-tech professional armies falling behind as mass armies make their return. I think the Twilight 2000 game got it right there. The Twilight War lasted for half a decade and ended with the sides exhausting themselves. The high-tech was mostly gone in the first few weeks, but neither side gave in. So the war became attritional with both sides began digging into equipment reserves and cutting corners with new gear.

Would infantry be given six months training and handed a rifle and a couple of grenades and then herded towards the front line?

Yes. In even less time than that, probably.

Could a modern infantry battalion be rolled out as quickly as one in 1917 or 1943?

Yes, probably.

Would armies change their structure so that more complex equipment and tactics are abandoned in favour of simplicity and speed?

Yes. Given the parameters of your scenario, in many ways they might actually become better than now since redundant accretions in process and over-gilding would be eliminated.

Incidentally, the factors mentioned by Vigilant and Legion4 are probably not that relevant in your scenario, since they would affect all sides reasonably equally.

I would assume that infantry would be easy enough to produce. The 1980's soldier wasn't a lot different from his 1940's granddad.

True on both accounts …

I would imagine that the M113 would be king in the mechanized infantry units

I'd hope not …

Just restart the draft to build those dozens of infantry divisions.

I don't think it would be all that easy …

I think the cost argument doesn't match with reality. In WWII
both sides spent themselves silly in both money and blood. Fitness wise in WWI and WWII both sides drafted unfit troops into action.

I think today is much different than in both those wars for a number of reasons.

Incidentally, the factors mentioned by Vigilant and Legion4 are probably not that relevant in your scenario, since they would affect all sides reasonably equally.

But still are relevant to a point. As again, today is not WWI or WWII. We are talking about some very different types of "people" and situations, from WWI, WWII/Korea, etc., to now.

Of course I could be wrong. I'm just making an "educated" guess based on a number of factors.

+1 Tgunner

The Army has a LONG and not so proud tradition of taking the dregs of society and turning them into soldiers.

You calling me a "dreg" !?!?!

I spoke with a Korean War vet a number of years ago and he told me his basic training was something like three weeks, and they learned marksmanship by shooting from the deck of the transport ship on the way to Korea.

Yes, as former Infantry Cdr … that is not the best way to train for combat. But it works to the point that you get more bodies/boots on the ground, fairly quickly. And they OJT … at that point the learning curve is steep.

That is something we had to learn, better to have a well trained standing force. Than only a handful of professional and depend on a draft. You take less losses in the long run. Again, today is a bit different then WWI, WWII, Korea and even Vietnam …

The Army has a LONG and not so proud tradition of taking the dregs of society and turning them into soldiers.

In this case, just because that is always the way it was done … does not make it right.

One thing to keep in mind is that the US Army today has IIRC more Abrams hulks rusting away awaiting refurbishment than tanks actually in service. So presumably if things got bad then a crash program to bring those hulks up to speed could be done & the tank force doubles. Don't know what the situation is with the Brad, but I can't imagine it is much different…

Damon.

IIRC I've heard about 2000 M1s were "mothballed". And IIRC, there was only one plant working on upgrading, etc., M1s, M2s, etc., in Lima OH.

As always of course the US did sell some M1s to our allies. I think Egypt and Iraq have some. But I don't think those were the more recent upgraded versions.

Well, today it takes about 2 years from Basic to a Soldier's first combat deployment. 6 months or so for getting the new Soldier's skills trained, the rest of the time is getting his skills as a member of his unit up to snuff.

But I'd guess that some of that time could be shaved off since we're talking an actual war and not counter-insurgency warfare. There's a lot of shoot/don't-shoot training for COIN that you don't need for a full-on war.

I'd be surprised if you could get the time down to less than a year, though.

The bigger question would be heavy equipment. There's only one factory currently able to make Abrams tanks. Not that we couldn't spool others up, but we couldn't simply teach one assembly line of workers how to weld armor steel instead of car bodies, and then turn them loose to teach other lines. Most of that is robotic these days.

We also don't have the huge number of shipyards we did in WW2, so making ships to get forces to Europe would be slower.

I'd be surprised if you could get the time down to less than a year, though.

Well you could but as we know … losses would generally be higher. As I have repeatedly said, IMO, well trained and experienced troops are "better" for a variety of reasons.

And 1917, 1942, 1950, 1963, were all a little different paradigms than today. So yeah, you could mass produce massive amounts of Infantry units … but their quality would not be what you would want to win a war quickly with limited losses. But as we see, WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam were pretty much all about massive numbers. Another case of quantity vs. quality. But that could be a whole other topic.

As Saber6 mentioned, even in WW2 it took about a year to stand up a whole new division.

And modern grunts have more stuff to learn (like how to load crypto into their radios, which is NOT a 1hr class!).

I guess the 'good' thing is that after 18 years of COIN, we have a very good idea of what it takes to be a good combat soldier.

And modern grunts have more stuff to learn (like how to load crypto into their radios, which is NOT a 1hr class!).

Very true … you just don't give a guy a rifle after a couple weeks of training and send him to the front. Even though that may have been done before … it really is not the way to do things today. Warfare today is a bit of a different paradigm than it was during much of the 20th Century.

I guess the 'good' thing is that after 18 years of COIN, we have a very good idea of what it takes to be a good combat soldier.

Also very true … Lessons Learned and experience are very valuable …

During the Cold War the Swedish army was expected to turn conscripts into a company of citizen soldiers in 15 months. Depending on their position a conscript would serve 10, 12 or 15 months, later changed to 7,5,10,12 and 15 months in order to save money. Post Cold War the training time was actually increased as the army was reduced in size so in the final years of conscription you served 10/11 months or 15 depending on the position you had been selected for.

7,5 months training for the rank and file was too short, there was a real feeling that we had to let the men go just as they were getting to the point were the unit started becoming good and there was a marked increase in performance when training time was extended.

But doing this depended on having an existing cadre of regular and reserve officers for each company, if you had to train additional reserve officers it took an additional 12 months to create a reserve lieutenant who could command a platoon. Company level reserve officers took additional time and were only selected once they had proven themselves at the platoon level.

Other key factors were that it was truly universal military service, not a draft. You basicly had to be criminal, insane or disabled to not serve in some fashion. And the selection process was surprisingly good getting the right man for the job as you went through several days of tests before being selected for a particular position. (And the truly specialised position would require passing addtional tests and were only open to volunteers.)

Also conscripts trained together as the squad/platoon/company they would serve in, this was done in order to create as much unit cohesion as possible and it was common for men to serve together until they were mustered out of the army at age 47.

Of course in Israel, as soon as you turn 18 … you are in the military. But they were/are in a unique situation. Fortunately today after decades of conflict, the Jordanian and Egyptian leadership and in turn their militaries don't pose much of a threat anymore. You could say the same about Syria for different reasons as it is embroiled in a very bloody civil war/insurgency/battle with terrorists, etc. But as we see … the region is still "a very rough neighborhood" …