Increasing the size of the Present Day US Army

[2ndACR]

2T.............That is basically where we were at before King William became President. The Army fielded 18 divisions, along with several 6 IIRC, independent brigades. The Navy had IIRC 500 ships, 12 full strength CVN battle groups. Not sure what the USAF had, but it was a bunch. The Marines have basically maintained around 200,000 or so for 20 years.
 
 90,000 troops equates to roughly 18.5 combat brigades fully staffed. But figure 10 to be on the safe side and to account for the additional combat support units those 10 brigades would need. Without the added combat support units, we would get 18 fully staffed combat brigades with roughly 5,000 troops each.
 
It takes years to field a large military and lots of money (something we did in the 80's) but it can all be undone in 1-2 years. As Clintoon did.
 
I would like to see the army expanded back to pre Clinton years. I would like to have the LID's back (light infantry divisions). Fairly easy to air lift (only around 500 flights or so)[8|]. The 7th, 6th, 9th, 25th, 10th were all LID's back in my day. Lots of infantry which is what we need now. But infantry combat is casualty heavy, and i fear, as we see now, that the US people are too casualty sensitive. Heck, this the the lowest casualty war in history. IMO anyway.
 
 The navy needs to be back to 500 ships with the CV's. And I want the BB's back too. I like them. The USMC could do to be expanded some, but I really think by only 20-30,000. They are a, as designed, in and out force.......the army is the long haul force.
 
 The USAF.......well, it needs to be enlarged, but not sure how big. Their toys are too expensive and manpower intensive.

[BailChannis]

ORIGINAL: bartholimew

ORIGINAL: Marauders

The United States military would do better to be structured like the Israeli Self Defense Forces. Every citizen should be trained, so if there is a war, the United States can use overwhelming force and get it done with.

They are more so than any other country. Why do you think people own mach 10's and every old lady has a gun in their purse in Texas for example. I pitty the king of England when he tries to take the colonies back.

More than any other country? Sure about that? If tribes and villagers in places like Africa and the Middle East had only small arms like pistols and rifles, many of the conflicts in those places would have been over long ago. In some of these places you can buy an RPG or DshK HMG in an open air market, no questions asked.

Also I think places like Switzerland or Israel - places with mandatory military service - could really beg to differ. Every Swiss male of age is fully equipped, with full gear - everything from weapons and ammunition to needles and thread - stored at home. Bit different than ladies with pistols in their purses!

[2ndACR]

BailChannis,
 
 There are roughly 200 million guns in civilian hands in the US. Probably more than that since that number is dated some. A few years ago, it was said that there are enough guns in private hands to equip every person (man woman and child) in the US with a gun. We have roughly 20 million hunters in the US.......maybe more than that. Countless target shooters here.
 
I alone have 2 AR15's, 3 shotguns, 2 rifles and 4 pistols. Plus about 3,000 rounds of ammo. That is just me. Plus, I have the military training to make alot of trouble for an enemy. So, yes, I pity anyone who try's to take the US by force.
 
 

[morvwilson]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

BailChannis,

There are roughly 200 million guns in civilian hands in the US. Probably more than that since that number is dated some. A few years ago, it was said that there are enough guns in private hands to equip every person (man woman and child) in the US with a gun. We have roughly 20 million hunters in the US.......maybe more than that. Countless target shooters here.

I alone have 2 AR15's, 3 shotguns, 2 rifles and 4 pistols. Plus about 3,000 rounds of ammo. That is just me. Plus, I have the military training to make alot of trouble for an enemy. So, yes, I pity anyone who try's to take the US by force.

Hope you don't mind me dovetailing here 2ndACR, but I heard these very facts quoted as the reason why the Soviet Union never tried an armed invasion in an interview of a former KGB official on the radio.

[2ndACR]

Would not surprise me. But I hope the ultimate threat of "before the last free breathe from an American, we will destroy all life on Earth" also worked. And continues to work.
 
I worry more about the inside threat to America that I can not fight against..................Liberals.

[morvwilson]

I think the liberals will fight, but it may take a mushroom cloud over an american city befor that happens. I hope I am wrong, but they keep backing our enemies.

[Erik Rutins]

Ok, despite some interesting responses, this has veered again into politics. Can I please ask you folks to discuss the subject without bringing politics into it? I'm genuinely interested in the opinions on this board as far as what shape a modern conflict vs. Iran, North Korea or the border areas of Pakistan would take. Does the US have the ability to fight any of these conflicts while engaged in Iraq at the current level?

If it veers towards politics again, I'll have to lock it, unfortunately.

[Ursa MAior]

To be honest as far as I heard, being a member of the US armed forces is widely respected, but compensation is not in balance with it. Correct me if I am wrong. If it is so it will tkae more money than a new weapon system, but incrreasing the soldeirs' salary to a level where it is REALLY worth to be a soldier will have to solve the problem.

"Unless things start to improve, we will start to see a serious problem in six to nine months," said Bernard E. Trainor, a retired Marine Corps three-star general and a former Marine Corps deputy chief of staff under Ronald Reagan. "I think they [the Pentagon] are betting that things are going to get better. But that could be a miscalculation," said Trainor. "This crowd has been pretty good at miscalculating."

Indeed, the revelation that well over 1 million U.S. troops have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan surprises even close military observers. "Those are big numbers ... a lot bigger than I would have thought," said John Pike, the director of GlobalSecurity.org, a defense information Web site that tracks the logistics of war. Pike thinks it is too early to tell what the impact will be on the regular Army, but he said the repeated deployments have already broken the reserve forces.

What do you think of this it is also from the same article?

[BailChannis]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

BailChannis,

There are roughly 200 million guns in civilian hands in the US. Probably more than that since that number is dated some. A few years ago, it was said that there are enough guns in private hands to equip every person (man woman and child) in the US with a gun. We have roughly 20 million hunters in the US.......maybe more than that. Countless target shooters here.

I alone have 2 AR15's, 3 shotguns, 2 rifles and 4 pistols. Plus about 3,000 rounds of ammo. That is just me. Plus, I have the military training to make alot of trouble for an enemy. So, yes, I pity anyone who try's to take the US by force.

I admit that the United States would be a nightmare to occupy, due to the size (both population and land) and diversity of environments ... lots of urban terrain, deserts, mountains, etc. Also I think things like the quantity of small machine shops (and even well-stocked garages) and technical expertise would pose a formidable problem for any would-be occupier. Plus no pacification can possibly be succesful if the borders can't be sealed, and this would be totally impossible in the US. And the quantity of firearms is a problem (though of less relevance than a steady supply of ammunition).

However, in all fairness, if geography and other factors are taken out of the picture, I don't think the US population is prepared for an insurgency against a modern military force "moreso than any other country in the world". It's not like there are a few dozen RPGs in even the smallest village, as is the case in many other parts of the world, and only a small fraction of the population has actual military training. Small arms alone are not sufficient equipment for any guerrilla force in this day and age (although I imagine that, due to factors mentioned above, an American insurgency would have little difficulty arming itself with heavy ordinance).

[anarchyintheuk]

Agree w/ BailChannis. I've always suspected that we would have had a significant quisling element.

[Smead]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Ok, despite some interesting responses, this has veered again into politics. Can I please ask you folks to discuss the subject without bringing politics into it? I'm genuinely interested in the opinions on this board as far as what shape a modern conflict vs. Iran, North Korea or the border areas of Pakistan would take. Does the US have the ability to fight any of these conflicts while engaged in Iraq at the current level?

If it veers towards politics again, I'll have to lock it, unfortunately.

War being extreme diplomacy, and in discussing it's tools, how can politics be seperated??

The politics of some could cause one to say that no increase is necessary at all.

To prevent an inevitable lock-up, I have started a concurrent thread in the more formal Steakhouse portion of MCSH entitled "Military Increase".

http://www.madcowssteakhouse.com/posting.php?mode=newtopic&f=5

I would say that I approve of the Army's Brigade Modular transformation, it mimic's the USMC's MEU concept.

I would say that we are in one solid war right now with Afghanistan and Iraq; operations short of a war with a nation-state could be conducted using Air Force and Naval assets.

We could not resist a full blown invasion of South Korea deployed as we are now. Reserves and National Guard would take a while to call-up and would be insufficient.

[Erik Rutins]

You're right, it can't really be, I was naive to think otherwise. Locking this one up, thanks everyone for the interesting feedback.