- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Let's talk about military spending
Posted on 3/18/17 at 10:44 am to DisplacedBuckeye
Posted on 3/18/17 at 10:44 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:It's so easy an 18 year old can do it.
Those jobs don't require nearly the same amount of training and experience to be effective.
2
Posted on 3/18/17 at 10:45 am to DisplacedBuckeye
I'm hoping that as well.
I'll be the first to admit that when I first started going down this path from a pure Signal Corps perspective I kept wondering why the hell Intel had any place in Cyber.
Thankfully I had a great boss who really opened up my eyes. Now I scream bloody murder when someone suggest we use my intel bubbas for some other task during an exercise.
My State teaches a Cyber Threat Analysis Course (CTAC) and it blew my mind how closely doctrinal terms and graphics directly mapped to enemy actions on the objective on an enterprise environment. Avenues of approach, key terrain, TAI, the whole nine yards.
I'll be the first to admit that when I first started going down this path from a pure Signal Corps perspective I kept wondering why the hell Intel had any place in Cyber.
Thankfully I had a great boss who really opened up my eyes. Now I scream bloody murder when someone suggest we use my intel bubbas for some other task during an exercise.
My State teaches a Cyber Threat Analysis Course (CTAC) and it blew my mind how closely doctrinal terms and graphics directly mapped to enemy actions on the objective on an enterprise environment. Avenues of approach, key terrain, TAI, the whole nine yards.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 10:48 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
That's the new (newish, maybe) secret of the reserve components - they're pushing most of that onto the reserve component soldier to do on his/her own time.
Ya, and I'll be the first to admit we probably play fast and loose with having "completed" our AR 350-1 training.
Strangely enough, the units haven't fallen apart yet.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 10:48 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Well I've done it three times so I kinda do.
Then you should know how abuts it would be to try and mobilize and deploy a 10+ division sized force and get them in the field and fighting in less than six weeks. We could not even get a battalion ready in that time.
quote:
Actually I don't think it's that significant at all. In fact, on my 04 deployment to Iraq we mobilized and deployed in less than 4 months and did more than our fair share of "maneuvering
You're hurting your case here. First off, you're admitting it took four months for your unit to be ready to go. Even that is far too slow in an actual shooting war against an actual country like Russia, China, Iran, or North Korea with a real military. And what type of unit was this that was ready in four months? It was your battalion, right?
How many battalions are in a brigade?
How many brigades are in a division?
How many divisions does it take to fight a real war?
Now imagine the logistics and facilities it took to get your one battallion ready. Do you think we even have enough bases still operating to accommodate enough battalions to have any significant force ready in time for a war? And keep in mind you can't just take a bunch of BNs, mesh them with other BNs they've never trained with into brigades that are themselves meshed together to form divisions. No, even after your battalion is ready, it would have to go though more training with the other units of whatever division it was assigned to. Hell, we're talking upwards of a full year just to get one division ready to fight. Do you honestly think we'd have that long?
The bottom line is we simply would not be able to fight anyone if we did away with our army and Air Force. The notion we could is insane.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 10:52 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
What about tankers, grunts, and red legs? Last time I checked there's not many civilian jobs where you are required to crew a tank in combat conditions or conduct artillery fire missions.
Those jobs don't require nearly the same amount of training and experience to be effective.
No offense, but that is the most stupid statement I've read in this thread. The ignorance behind your statement is astounding and shows you have a complete lack of any understanding of military matters. You should refrain from ever posting in one of these threads ever again.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 10:54 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
It's so easy an 18 year old can do it.
So would you go into combat where your brigade commander is an 18 yr old about 3 months past his high school prom?
Posted on 3/18/17 at 10:59 am to Darth_Vader
Darth, I think you're thinking that under my construct that everything would remain the exact same as it is now with regards to the reserve component. Obviously there would be some changes.
I've posted several ideas in this thread already to alieve some of your concerns. Since there wouldn't be an active component anymore there would be a lot more funding for the reserve component even if we cut spending by up to 50%. More drill periods per year and a longer AT period, or as I've suggested 4 one week long drill periods per year. Mobilizations of one year every six years. All the schools and training houses would still operate full time.
Our smaller active force and the required time to spool them up would also force the Europeans to field stronger armies to fend off the Russian hordes while we get our shite together to come help if we so choose. We've already done this twice as a matter of fact. That's the price they pay for living right next door to a natural enemy. We don't live right next door to a natural enemy so there's no reason to have a military that needs to be able to fight 17 Corps of tanks on day one. Lucky us.
I've posted several ideas in this thread already to alieve some of your concerns. Since there wouldn't be an active component anymore there would be a lot more funding for the reserve component even if we cut spending by up to 50%. More drill periods per year and a longer AT period, or as I've suggested 4 one week long drill periods per year. Mobilizations of one year every six years. All the schools and training houses would still operate full time.
Our smaller active force and the required time to spool them up would also force the Europeans to field stronger armies to fend off the Russian hordes while we get our shite together to come help if we so choose. We've already done this twice as a matter of fact. That's the price they pay for living right next door to a natural enemy. We don't live right next door to a natural enemy so there's no reason to have a military that needs to be able to fight 17 Corps of tanks on day one. Lucky us.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 11:00 am to Darth_Vader
quote:Darth let's try to stay in reality here man.
So would you go into combat where your brigade commander is an 18 yr old about 3 months past his high school prom?
Posted on 3/18/17 at 11:22 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
As for the marine battalion that did make it, if I'm not mistaken wasn't it also an artillery BN?
I recall that least one of the active duty USMC tank Bns on DS was given a compliment of Army Abrams tanks changing out for their M-60s. Another USMC tank Bn kept the M-60s, maybe M-60A3s with the RISE package. The Iraqis ran a counter attack and the Bn with the Pattons took the brunt. They killed about 100 T-55s/T-62s for no loss. This was done under illum at night.
Now that is from memory.
The reserve tank companies from Tacoma and Miami or somewhere in FL also deployed and wound up with Abrams tanks. And that went okay too.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 11:24 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
No offense, but that is the most stupid statement I've read in this thread.
Coming from you, there is zero offense taken.
Feel free to show why I'm wrong.
Not sure what you did in the military or when, but I'd put solid money out that says my perspective is more relevant. From that perspective, my statement is completely accurate. You being offended by it doesn't change that.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 11:35 am to Darth_Vader
quote:Bro, no. They roll like that we will go nuclear. Come on.
If the Russians have something like three entire Fronts (army groups) rolling across Central Europe, what is one battalion going to do to stem the tide?
Posted on 3/18/17 at 11:40 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Darth, I think you're thinking that under my construct that everything would remain the exact same as it is now with regards to the reserve component. Obviously there would be some changes.
Basically what you're describing is the force structure we had just before WWII. A large reserve and national guard force with a smalll active duty force.
Now consider this, we entered the war in December 1941. But we had actually started mobilizing in 1940. And how long was it before we could get a sufficiently large enough force to Europe to launch major offensive operations? It took almost four years. And that's with the full mobilization of our industrial and maritime strenght going full blast 24/7.
Again, if a major war started with a major player in Europe, the Middle East, or south east Asia, we'd at best have a few weeks to have any influence on the outcome. The notion a reserve force could react in time is just not realistic.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 11:45 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Coming from you, there is zero offense taken. Feel free to show why I'm wrong. Not sure what you did in the military or when, but I'd put solid money out that says my perspective is more relevant. From that perspective, my statement is completely accurate. You being offended by it doesn't change that.
You claimed it takes little no no time to train combat arms units compared to combat support units. This is patently false as anyone who knows dick about military matters knows. It actually takes months to prepare a peacetime combat arms unit for combat. Furthermore it takes years to train the NCOs and officers how to effectively lead and command those units.
You can't just take a bunch of smucks, hand them a rifle and show them where the trigger is and think you've got a combat ready unit.
The fact I'm having to explain all this to you shows how ignorant you truly are.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 11:50 am to Lakeboy7
quote:
shining the wall
My personal "rage" is the broken necks at drill
Give them nothing meaningful to do and then complain that they are non-participants
Posted on 3/18/17 at 11:54 am to Darth_Vader
quote:You went full Whiskey Papa there
The fact I'm having to explain all this to you shows how ignorant you truly are.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 12:11 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:
If the Russians have something like three entire Fronts (army groups) rolling across Central Europe, what is one battalion going to do to stem the tide?
Bro, no. They roll like that we will go nuclear. Come on.
You are going to detonate nuclear weapons in the most urban part of Europe?
No, you are not. And the US certainly is not.
Walt
Posted on 3/18/17 at 12:15 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
Like it or not, massive military spending on countries besides our own is a requirement when we enjoy and want to continue to enjoy the advantages of the USD as the world's primary reserve currency.
If the USD's advantages had to be unwound, I don't even want to imagine what would happen to our economy, and eventually the stability and strength of our country.
If the USD's advantages had to be unwound, I don't even want to imagine what would happen to our economy, and eventually the stability and strength of our country.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 12:20 pm to WhiskeyPapa
In the scenario he just described? Are you kidding me? There is absolutely the possibility of a tactical nuke being used.
Glad to see you caught your second wind old man
Glad to see you caught your second wind old man
Posted on 3/18/17 at 12:29 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:
There is absolutely the possibility of a tactical nuke being used.
Most U.S. CONPLANs, circa 1985:
quote:
Checklist should any Soviet Front achieve operational success in the German theater, sufficient for them to deploy their OMG:
Step 1 - Nuke them
Posted on 3/18/17 at 12:31 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
You claimed it takes little no no time to train combat arms units compared to combat support units.
Link that.
quote:
The fact I'm having to explain all this to you shows how ignorant you truly are.
You aren't explaining anything. You misrepresented my statement because you wanted your nonsensical rant to have meaning. It doesn't.
Page 19 of 32
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News