Matrix Games Forums

I keep hearing that they want to do this, but I have not heard any mention of just how they intend to do this, I asume they mean increasing the size of all the Armed forces, Marines and Army and Navy and Air Force, does anyone have any specifics on this?

Not quite: the Air Force is to be left as is, and there will be no increase in the personnel of the U.S. Navy. (Technically the Navy will grow because the Marines are part of the Navy, as the FBI is part of the Department of Justice.) The total increase in ground-pounders is planned at 92,000 men. It remains to be seen what Congress is willing to fund.

Given the size of the pre-1992 volunteer military, I can't imagine this would really be that hard to do. Is the main obstacle the various base closures and a reduction in actual training capabilities?

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Given the size of the pre-1992 volunteer military, I can't imagine this would really be that hard to do. Is the main obstacle the various base closures and a reduction in actual training capabilities?

There are several obstacles but the biggest is that politicians and generals are loathe to capitalize the human element of the game as it is less personally rewarding for them than systems acquisition.

Thanks, But just what does 92,000 men translate into? How many Brigades, asuming they will be brigades, and if so what type?(Strriker,Armored,Light Infentry, ect???)

Given the current war, I don't think it likely they will activate heavy maneuver units (armor or mech. inf.). My guess would be light inf. 

ORIGINAL: Brady


I keep hearing that they want to do this, but I have not heard any mention of just how they intend to do this, I asume they mean increasing the size of all the Armed forces, Marines and Army and Navy and Air Force, does anyone have any specifics on this?

Where do you keep hearing this, did you see this figure prior to last night ?

But anyway there is a whole host of ways to up enrolment numbers , lift prior restrictions , incentives/bonuses.

As any of you known that have prior service in the last ten years you received a exploratory to interest level of enrolment, along with a detailed description of alternative training options (depending on prior MOS).

From what I know, there is about 100,000 ground pounders due to rotate back to civ that signed back in 02-03 [;)]

ORIGINAL: morvwilson

Given the current war, I don't think it likely they will activate heavy maneuver units (armor or mech. inf.). My guess would be light inf. 

Correct, also skilled support .

IIRC the number is around 12 to 1 Grunt

I listen to NPR during the day a lot, and they mention it often...

There was a news blurb on Yahoo awhile back also, that listed the break down for marines and Army. Marines were climbing about 20000 the rest will be army.

Using the old numbers for "divisions" that is 4 regiments for the Marines and probably 10 to 15 brigades for the army, assuming the vast majority go into combat arms.

A note, a MArine regiment is similiar in numbers to an Army Brigade. Those not aware, the Marines call elements of Divisions Regiments and stand alone organizations less than a Division Brigades, the Army uses the term Brigade for the elements of a Division, cant remember if Regiments were ever stand alone organizations for the Army though.

My take on the "difficulty" is no one wants to PAY for more troops. The pay and maintanaince costs for individuals is the highest cost to the military. An increase of 90 thousand is a major money investment in just pay alone, not counting the increased cost in medical and support costs and depending on whether the Army and marine Corps has weapons to arm them, that could be another cost.

Getting the people to join isnt a problem as far as I can tell. Getting the politicians to PAY for it is the problem. And this includes all 3 of the political types the US has, Independent and the 2 major parties.

Another sort of problem is that once they start recruiting it will take time to increase the levels AND even more time to train and actually field new units. The increase in manpower has to be a decision the politicians will live with for years to come or it is a complete waste of money.

By law ( the Constitution) No funding for the military can exceed a life of 2 years. Every year basicly, the military is rebudgetted. And that cant significantly change. Every 2 years the House of Representatives has every member stand for election/reelection. That body is the primary body of the US Government to create all money bills. Unless the 2 main parties are interested in maintaining an increase, actually doing it would be a big waste of resources, time and money. Neither party has been interested in doing that and my feeling is they still really arent interested in it.

The army had quite a few independent regiments in world war II. They usually called them regimental combat teams. They switched to brigades in 1957.

"Ironically, while some experts think the draft exacerbated the desolation of the Army after Vietnam, others argue that it is one option to maintain national security given the current strain on the all-volunteer force. "America has a choice. It can be the world's superpower or it can maintain the current all-volunteer military, but it probably can't do both," Phillip Carter and Paul Glastris wrote in the Washington Monthly last month."
 
source globalsecurity.org 2005. may

I wonder what Ike would think about this.  The United States is still fighting the Cold War for the military industrial complex.
 
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.
 

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.

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

"Ironically, while some experts think the draft exacerbated the desolation of the Army after Vietnam, others argue that it is one option to maintain national security given the current strain on the all-volunteer force. "America has a choice. It can be the world's superpower or it can maintain the current all-volunteer military, but it probably can't do both," Phillip Carter and Paul Glastris wrote in the Washington Monthly last month."

source globalsecurity.org 2005. may

I suspect for every "expert" you find that thinks this there are 2 or 3 that dont think so. There is no need for the draft and other than people with an agenda ( not a military one) no one seriously believes the draft is neccassary.

The people in Congress touting a draft dont even really want one, it is a ploy, they remember the 60's and believe if they can just get the draft they can actually get protestors for any war or 'adventure" the US needs to do.

More importantly no current major military Generals believe the draft is neccassary. The "all Volunteer" force is meeting its recruitment and retention goals, inspite of claims to the contrary. And the Military believes it can add the 92000 new troops with out a draft, rather as they are now, all volunteer.

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior
"America has a choice. It can be the world's superpower or it can maintain the current all-volunteer military, but it probably can't do both," Phillip Carter and Paul Glastris wrote in the Washington Monthly last month."

source globalsecurity.org 2005. may

[:D] NOT !

We can use overwhelming force with the troop levels as they are. There is no political will to do so. You can have 2 million people on the ground and they can be useless without effective ROE

"Heavy" units are extremely expensive in particular due to equipment, but the US has been moving away from those towards HMMWV / Stryker-based units, keeping only a few really "Heavy" divisions. The recent reorganization to more brigades also makes each brigade smaller as well.

How many new brigades could we expect from the proposed expansion and would it be fair to assume they would all be non-heavy units? Without venturing into politics, what do you all feel is the most effective type of brigade for the US Army to have in the next ten years? Heavy, Light Mechanized (i.e. Stryker), Light Infantry (i.e. 10th Mountain), Airmobile, Airborne? Or should we have more Marine brigades with their existing flexible structure?

Now, to venture into armchair strategy, if we have to maintain 120-150k troops in Iraq for several more years, what size expansion would we need in order to be able to handle these two possibilities:

1. War with Iran
2. War with North Korea
3. Limited War with tribal regions of Pakistan

I make no assumptions as to what the best strategy would be in each case and thus how many ground troops it would require, but I'm interested to hear your thoughts. Again, let's stick to discussing strategy and the military side rather than politics, just pretend we're in a political vacuum.

Regards,

- Eriks

We are in capable of fighting 3 wars , we never were actually geared for that to begin with. Though they used to claim we could fight 2 and a half wars. What ever half a war is....

For arguements sake we will call current operations in Iraq/Afghanistan as the half a war. We might be able to pull of one short war ( 4 to 6 months) with out significant increases in troop strength, but it would require all ( in my opinion) Reserves and national Guard called up.

If we want a credible force we should increase the Army by about 300 thousand combat troops, meaning we would need at least that many in support as well, OR a major change in how our military trains and operates.

The Marine Corps should add 5 to 6 more Regiments 4 being Infantry and 2 being Artillery. They should also add several battalions of Amphibious vehicles and several Battalions of tanks and LAV's. That would be about 2/3's or more of what their strength is now , so say 150000 troops.

The Airforce should increase the number of squadrons they have, adding 4 to 6 mulitpurpose squadrons, 4 to 6 heavy bomber squadrons and 4 to 6 airlift squadrons. No idea what manpower that requires.

The Navy should increase to at least 500 combat vessels. We should have at least 15 Aircraft Carriers and their required escorts and support ships. We need more Amphibious troop carriers of both helo capable and of just troop landing capable. We need more prepositioned ships and we NEED combat ships assigned on a permanent basis to protect them. This increase would require a lot more support vessels alos.

We need light craft and possibly medium craft capable of in shore operations and riverine operations. We need craft designed to insert teams of up tp 30 to 40 troops and escort vessels to provide security and fire support.

None of this is going to happen, No one wants it to that is in any position of power.

Until the US wakes up to the fact they are in a Global War against as much as 6 to 10 nation States ( potentially) and potentially millions of "stateless" terrorists the US will not take the needed steps.

Troops in any number mean nothing, as does any gee whiz state of the art weapons system or platform. Unless the Country intends to use them. This requires a MAJOR change in the politics of US foreign Affairs. It requires the cooperation of all major political parties and it MUST be articulated to the people of the country. NO ONE is on the horizin that grasps this or plans any of this.

We need to adopt and use realistic Rules of Engagement. We need to tell our potential enemies that we have no intent of ever again wasting our time rebuilding any country we destroy unless it is required by world conditions and the needs of the US. Few of the current potential enemy states require us to do that if we are forced to fight them.