Size of Modern Armies

Tenger

There was an article in the Irish Times yesterday titled "The Dangerous business of dismantling empires" The main point was that the turmoil in Africa/Indian sub continent/mid east/balkans/caucasus is the fallout from the empires of the 17-19th centuries.

Anyway the writer (Tony Kinsella)makes a point concerning the smaller sixe of modern armies. He asserts that nations are no longer capable of traditional (19th century) 'invasions' due to the expeditionary (my term) nature of their armies.

"The US as the worlds largest military power,is just about capable of deploying the 140,000 troops it has in Iraq and Afghanistan.......Russian deployed some 30,000 troops into Georgia....drawn mainly from the elite units such as 76th Air Assault Div and 96th Airborne DIV...these outfits have benefited significantly from the reform and investment programmes designed to produce a smaller professional force by 2015"
"The UK can deploy around 12000 troops, France about 10000,Germany and Poland 7000 each with Italy and Spain managing 5000 each.The numbers fall as one descends towards the Irish figures of under 1000 personnel."

The point seems to be that without the process of mass mobilization akin to the Draft in the US, modern nation states have very little actual power to "impose naional solutions on hostile populations"

Discuss:

dresden8

The threat the Americans have is that they can bomb your @ss back to the stone age using their carrier battle groups and strategic bombers.

Most European countries are only interested in getting their nationals out of some cr@phole country when things start to go awry.

So no, big, long-term invasions are off. Unless you're a small country next to Russia or in Central America. If the Americans ever leave Iraq and Afghanistan they may start casting around again.

Russia is investing in it's military so we'll see where they go.

Of course, China could make a grab for Taiwan. Now that would be interesting.

Fratton Fred

Most european armies spent 30 years preparing for a wave of red coming through the iron curtain to worry too much about going somewhere else to fight a war. look at how poor Britain was at fighting Argentina.

The US always seemed to have the policy of defending it shores well away from its shores, so had the ability to poject muscle overseas.

fast forward to today and basically you have a whole host of countries who are incapable of fighting a war abroad without the US. Even the UN is impotent without them.

Whilst pretty much everyone slags America for trying to be the defender of the free world, that's pretty much what it is, because as those numbers show, there isn't a decent army amongst them.

Manic Moran

A look at the pictures from Georgia shows that the Russians did not bother to send their first-line troops (apart from the airbone unit, which has a good reputation from Chechnya).

Similarly, I can pretty much guarantee that if the US had any particularly pressing need to place a half-million troops in any one place, it would be quite capable of doing so. However, it would mean a return to the WWII concept of 'you're in for the duration', none of this 'returning home after a year' stuff, which is quite a drain on resources.

There is also the issue of power projection capability. Few other armies have such a poor tooth-to-tail ratio as the US does. It is often used to deride the US military as there are so many support troops per trigger-puller. But the benefit to this is that the US has the support capability to conduct operations anywhere. Outside of a limited intervention, maybe up to Falklands War standard, no other country has seen fit to bother to expend any of its resources to such an expeditionary standard. This may be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your point of view, but if you want to hammer down a 'hot spot' before it gets to the level of Srebrenica, you've got to be able to get the hammer to where it needs to be.

NTM

Fratton Fred

Manic Moran wrote: »

There is also the issue of power projection capability. Few other armies have such a poor tooth-to-tail ratio as the US does. It is often used to deride the US military as there are so many support troops per trigger-puller. But the benefit to this is that the US has the support capability to conduct operations anywhere. Outside of a limited intervention, maybe up to Falklands War standard, no other country has seen fit to bother to expend any of its resources to such an expeditionary standard. This may be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your point of view, but if you want to hammer down a 'hot spot' before it gets to the level of Srebrenica, you've got to be able to get the hammer to where it needs to be.
NTM

I agree and I'm guessing that is the logic behind the two new QE Class Carriers, the type 45 destroyers and the new amphibious ships (Ocean, Albion and Bulwark) the Royal Navy has been sourcing over the last ten years.

whilst not up to the force of a US carrier force, it will mean that Britain can project a much greater presence overseas rather than spend time driving to Iceland and back hunting wayward fishermen and russian submarines.

r3nu4l

'in for the duration', US can 'bomb you're ass back to the Stone age'

Anyone ever hear of Vietnam?
The US drafted and mobilised so many troops and munitions, they had napalm, agent orange, had they wanted to use nukes, they had them, they were there for years but they lost and lost badly.

Massive armies that can readily deploy do not guarantee an easy win. Russia in Afghanistan is another example.

After years of occupation in Iraq, it's only recently that coalition forces have managed to stem the tide of suicide bombs and if you believe the press that's because the Black Ops units (SAS and Delta Force) have been very busy for the past 18 months.

However all of that said, the ability to mobilise is essential and there is no doubt that most armies in Europe seem to be very poor at this. Or are they?

When have we actually seen them mobilise recently? It seems to me that they might be good at mobilising if they got the chance. Most of Europe is very keen to avoid getting heavily embroiled in conflict, it seems that the US and Britain are more willing. Why is this? Perhaps because neither nation has ever really had their industry and infrastructure obliterated to the same extent as many European countries have had over time. That's just me hypothesising though

OS119

i would somewhat - though with heavy caveats - question the need for the utterly mamouth expeditionary armies of 1945 in the modern context of defeating the enemy and airpower.

the 'tooth to tail' issue is only an issue if the tooth isn't powerful enough - the first big British deployment to helmand province - Herrick 4 - had a total force of 3,300 of which only 650 were infantry bayonets, it has now grown to 8,000+ but still less than half are 'trigger-pullers' yet the 'enablers' (ISTAR, Artillery, AH-64D, Harrier GR9 etc...) mean that the relatively small 'bayonet' force acheives far greater dominance of the terrain than a purely bayonet force of 8,000+ ever could. obviously this set up is more appropriate for a 'see it - kill it' operation found in conventional warfare rather than the minimum force operations of COIN, but it does go someway (for a moment ignoring the over-reliance on fixed-wing airpower and its subsequent 'collateral' damage that is crippling the ISAF effort to win hearts and minds) to replicating the 'light footprint' COIN strategy successfully persued in the Radfan campaign of the early 1970's.

in a conventional warfare setting - destroying the enemy - modern airpower can acheive as complete results, much quicker and with minimal friendly (and indeed enemy civilian) casualties than any invading army every could.

Manic Moran

r3nu4l wrote: »

'in for the duration', US can 'bomb you're ass back to the Stone age'

Anyone ever hear of Vietnam?
The US drafted and mobilised so many troops and munitions, they had napalm, agent orange, had they wanted to use nukes, they had them, they were there for years but they lost and lost badly.

The problem with using Vietnam as an example is (a ) the government utterly hindered the military with political restrictions such as 'no bombing North of here' resulting in very safe logistical areas. As a British naval type said, "The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imbecility." If you want to win a war, just tell the Pentagon "See that country? Make its military go away" and put no caveats upon it. You also have the problem that Vietnam, whilst the hottest part of the Cold War at the time, was not the most important part of the Cold War. The primary focus of the US military was always Germany.

When have we actually seen them mobilise recently? It seems to me that they might be good at mobilising if they got the chance.

I'm not so sure. Things have gotten a little more complicated in the last couple of years. Back in WWII, a new recruit needed to know how to shoot, how to move, and how to call in a grid on a map. If you could fix a farm tractor, you could fix a tank. Building a cargo ship took six days, building a destroyer took a bout two weeks. Nowadays, you've got anything from battlefield computers to all sorts of systems to master, you've not a hope of fixing a tank without specialist training, and building a modern destroyer takes months. Basically, if you decide you need a larger military, you had better already have one,because it's too late to change. The multi-year large-scale wars of the past are pretty much gone.

NTM

Tenger

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm not so sure. Things have gotten a little more complicated in the last couple of years............................... Basically, if you decide you need a larger military, you had better already have one,because it's too late to change. The multi-year large-scale wars of the past are pretty much gone.

I can remember reading a complilaion of short stories (Armoured Cav edited by Stephen Coonts) One story had a US army platoon in Chad in possibly 2015-2020. It consisted of 3 armoured vehicles (called Shimonski's) only one of which was actually manned. The crux of the story was that the US was the major peace enforcer of the UN. The maxim among aggressive states was to "Finish Your War Before The Americans Arrived".


I agree that currently, if you need a military you need 10 years. Look at Russia/CIS,they have spend the last 4-5 years building up for a target of 2015.The recent georgian incident/conflict shows that they want to flex their muscles. What did you mean MM concerning tha the Russians did not field their front line units? Surely an Airborne and an Air Assault Div would be 'frontline' units. I know some pics showed scruffy troops but they could easily have been South Ossetian Militia mistaken by the journos.
I agree that the UK is planning their future military for the ability of force projection.

Then there is the issue of China and their force projection. They have the numbers of aircraft,troops and missiles. The question is whether they have the naval/air assualt units to get their force to Taiwan intact. And whether the US will react quickly enough to inflict damage or wait to assist a Taiwanese defense/last stand.

OS119

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm not so sure. Things have gotten a little more complicated in the last couple of years. Back in WWII, a new recruit needed to know how to shoot, how to move, and how to call in a grid on a map. If you could fix a farm tractor, you could fix a tank. Building a cargo ship took six days, building a destroyer took a bout two weeks. Nowadays, you've got anything from battlefield computers to all sorts of systems to master, you've not a hope of fixing a tank without specialist training, and building a modern destroyer takes months. Basically, if you decide you need a larger military, you had better already have one,because it's too late to change. The multi-year large-scale wars of the past are pretty much gone.

NTM

personally, feeling the same way, i think that this utterly invalidates the Irish doctrine of having a 'cadre' system - one in which an Army maintains 'currency' in a form of warfare using a very small number of platforms in order to provide a baseline for a rapid expension in that capability should the situation require it, the "we have half a dozen CVR(T) so we can stay current with armoured manouver warfare, if we decide we need to get heavier we can buy 40-odd M1-A2/Challenger 2/Leopard 2/delete as required off the shelf and, using our experience with CVR(T), we'll have an Armoured Regiment in 6 weeks" story....

sounds like the product of a mind devoted to palming of the gullable to me, your views?

concussion

You cannot compare the US of the Vietnam era to its modern forces. Technology such as laser designation and GPS guided bombs have radically improved the tactical support available for ground troops.
Immediately after the September 11 attacks US army Green Beret's deployed to Afghanistan in 12 man teams to link up with and support Afghan warlords. Each Afghan general had beween 500 and 2000 troops and were loosely working together. Over the course of 2 months an estimated 40,000 Taliban and al Qaida troops were killed by the massive amounts of ordnance that the SF teams could guide in with pinpoint accuracy. While in the Vietnam era B 52's could carpet bomb an area with troops miles back outside the danger area, now they could loiter at high altitude and send several bombs to several targets seconds before an infantry (or indeed, horse cavalry) assault. At night AC 130's would come overhead and destroy anything moving - there was one female weapons officer who would transmit on Taleban frequencies, letting them know she was there - they called her the Angel of Death and the Northern Alliance would taunt them saying the US had so little respect for them that they were sending women to kill them.

Within 2 months the Taliban and AQ had mostly been driven out and a new government established. Granted, theres still fighting, especially in the south but the country is no longer being run by the Taleban. The Soviets tried unsuccessfully for 9 years and lost over 14,000 troops. Special forces, a few thousand Agfhan fighters and a huge quantity of precision munitions achieved that in 60 days or so.

neilled

dresden8 wrote: »

The threat the Americans have is that they can bomb your @ss back to the stone age using their carrier battle groups and strategic bombers.

Most European countries are only interested in getting their nationals out of some cr@phole country when things start to go awry.

So no, big, long-term invasions are off. Unless you're a small country next to Russia or in Central America. If the Americans ever leave Iraq and Afghanistan they may start casting around again.

Russia is investing in it's military so we'll see where they go.

Of course, China could make a grab for Taiwan. Now that would be interesting.

Speaking of which, its noted that the Taiwanese Ground Forces (ROC Army) are reducing the number of conscripts with the aim of phasing it out and moving towards an all volunteer force. The Airforce and Navy seem to be more professional and better equipped. Interestingly enough the ROCA's new APC seems to have had alot of Irish involvement in its design in the form of Timoney Technologies, with the emphasis on high mobility armoured formations to combat a "decapitation attack" from the PRC. Allegedly the yanks tried to get them to buy the Strker but they decided to go with "made in Taiwan" instead and are due to build about 1100 of the things.

Any battle between Taiwan and China would probably be won over the Straits and for the meantime Taiwan would have air superiority with its F-16, mirage's and its own home built IDF fighter aircraft, (although how long this will last the the PLAAF's recent tooling up and purchase of new aircraft and license to make the same from russia) and perhaps manage a draw at sea. The prospect of a yank carrier group or two showing up or one of the marine airways from japan getting involved would make things rather more interesting, it'd be quite a scrap.

Tenger

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm not so sure. ...........................Back in WWII, a new recruit needed to know how to shoot, how to move, and how to call in a grid on a map....................................................... Nowadays, you've got anything from battlefield computers to all sorts of systems to master, ....................

I have read a good book a while back by a US army, Lt-Col Daniel P Bolger called 'On Death Ground:Today's American Infantry in Battle'*. It discusses the training,capability,tactics,unit structure history and usage of the US infantry forces,giving an example of each unit. The examples include Panama (1989), Desert Storm (1991), Somalia (1993), Haiti (1994) and Liberia (1996). Now it is from late 2000 or 2001 I believe and so doesn't have the knowledge of the Shock And Awe doctrine and quotes a 91 battalion army.

He states that in the US military only approx 100,000 troops are actual trigger pullers,the rest are logistical and support. He does mention the increased lethality of the US infantry due to the support of airpower,cruise missiles and artillery.

He also states that the US need an alternative to the Bradley. Lo and behold they now have the Stryker in Iraq.

His main point is that the US frontline infantry are getting more highly trained and specialised which means the US will find it harder to keep up the troops levels required in the face of "2 and a half wars wars". Now we have two 1/2 wars or maybe 1 1/2 and we see the US military straining with the demands of Iraq and Afghanistan.

kowloon

Manic Moran wrote: »

Nowadays, you've got anything from battlefield computers to all sorts of systems to master, you've not a hope of fixing a tank without specialist training, and building a modern destroyer takes months.

That's plain untruth, in Independence Day they taught a drunken crop duster pilot to fly like an ace and save the human race in 15 minutes. Do you have the audacity to suggest Hollywood would lie to us? For shame! .

Manic Moran

What did you mean MM concerning tha the Russians did not field their front line units?

Look at the equipment they used. I saw BMP-1s, T-72s, T-62s, even a T-55. The SP artillery was the venerable 2S3. They used better equipment than that in Chechnya. By the time the Berlin Wall fell twenty years ago the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany had progressed beyond that level for the first echelon units.

They did not reposition any forces for the Georgia jaunt, they just used whatever they happened to have in the vicinity, and that has historically been something of a secondary region for the Red Army, not something that routinely got their best.

in Independence Day they taught a drunken crop duster pilot to fly like an ace and save the human race in 15 minutes

Though it's been a while, I seem to recall that he was an F-4 pilot in Vietnam, so would have been familiar with the basic functions of air-air systems.

Now, to properly prove your point, you should have cited the example of the near-feral humans in Battlefield Earth taking on the aliens in a flight of AV-8 Harriers they just happened to come across sitting in storage, after reading the manual.

Then again, there is precedent in the movies for that as well.

Captain Rumpelstoss: But... how will I learn to fly, Herr Colonel?
Colonel Manfred von Holstein: The way we do everything in the German army: from the book of instructions.
[Reading from flight instruction manual]
Step one: sit down.

He also states that the US need an alternative to the Bradley. Lo and behold they now have the Stryker in Iraq.

Stryker is not an alternative to the Bradley.
Bradley's not actually a bad IFV, but it sucks at the recon role.

NTM

Victor

r3nu4l wrote: »

After years of occupation in Iraq, it's only recently that coalition forces have managed to stem the tide of suicide bombs and if you believe the press that's because the Black Ops units (SAS and Delta Force) have been very busy for the past 18 months.

There has also been a big shift from pure military operations to community support - things like supporting local tribal chiefs on security and employment, rather than having large numbers of guns for hire hanging around.

concussion wrote: »

You cannot compare the US of the Vietnam era to its modern forces. Technology such as laser designation and GPS guided bombs have radically improved the tactical support available for ground troops.

Laser designation has been around since Vietnam. It just wasn’t used very effectively

Immediately after the September 11 attacks US army Green Beret's deployed to Afghanistan in 12 man teams to link up with and support Afghan warlords. Each Afghan general had beween 500 and 2000 troops and were loosely working together. Over the course of 2 months an estimated 40,000 Taliban and al Qaida troops were killed by the massive amounts of ordnance that the SF teams could guide in with pinpoint accuracy.

Do you have any back-up for this? The real decider in the fall of the Taliban was paying off local warlords who didn't have any particular allegiances to either side.

Within 2 months the Taliban and AQ had mostly been driven out and a new government established. Granted, theres still fighting, especially in the south but the country is no longer being run by the Taleban.

Unfortunately, I don't think its being run by the Afghan government either.

The Soviets tried unsuccessfully for 9 years and lost over 14,000 troops. Special forces, a few thousand Agfhan fighters and a huge quantity of precision munitions achieved that in 60 days or so.

The USSR was fighting a proxy war against irregulars supported by the USA, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

neilled wrote: »

Any battle between Taiwan and China would probably be won over the Straits .....

Any battle between Taiwan and China will be fought in offices and on the floor of stock exchanges. China is there for the long haul.

concussion

Victor wrote: »

Laser designation has been around since Vietnam. It just wasn’t used very effectively

So it has - didn't realise that. Was it used for CAS, the only references I can find are for strategic boming.

Victor wrote: »

Do you have any back-up for this? The real decider in the fall of the Taliban was paying off local warlords who didn't have any particular allegiances to either side.

The warlords were paid and supplied so they could equip their forces, and as an incentice. To say they didn't have allegiances to either side would be incorrect - they had a common enemy in the Taliban and al Qaeda and wanted them gone.

The Hunt for Bin Laden: Task Force Dagger by Robin Moore
http://www.amazon.com/Hunt-Bin-Laden-Force-Dagger/dp/0375508619

There's an exerpt here, doesn't have the casualty figure I quoted though.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0375508619/ref=sib_fs_top/103-2239310-0407032?ie=UTF8&p=S00V&checkSum=yZ53xk%2BLWd26A6pX%2BQMeqcciYQXiGcySiCqDiebx2rs%3D#]

Victor wrote: »

The USSR was fighting a proxy war against irregulars supported by the USA, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

The US was fighting a proxy war against regular and irregular forces supported by the USSR.

kowloon

Manic Moran wrote: »

Though it's been a while, I seem to recall that he was an F-4 pilot in Vietnam, so would have been familiar with the basic functions of air-air systems.

Foiled again, curses on you!

Victor

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=57147003

concussion wrote: »

The warlords were paid and supplied so they could equip their forces, and as an incentice. To say they didn't have allegiances to either side would be incorrect - they had a common enemy in the Taliban and al Qaeda and wanted them gone.

No, you misunderstand Afghan politics. In Afghanistan, there is no shame in taking cash and changing sides. In fact, so many changed sids so quickly because of cash that it was considered a military nuisance because those forces hadn't been atritted and hadn't been defeated and would remain as guns for hire.

The Hunt for Bin Laden: Task Force Dagger by Robin Moore
http://www.amazon.com/Hunt-Bin-Laden-Force-Dagger/dp/0375508619

There's an exerpt here, doesn't have the casualty figure I quoted though.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0375508619/ref=sib_fs_top/103-2239310-0407032?ie=UTF8&p=S00V&checkSum=yZ53xk%2BLWd26A6pX%2BQMeqcciYQXiGcySiCqDiebx2rs%3D#]

That comes across as a piece of propaganda for one unit, suggesting they won the whole was by themselves, which they didn't. Sure, maybe their input was critical, even decisive, but it wasn't everything.

minidazzler

One of the reasons for militaries being smaller now is because Generals are no longer relying on Cannon Fodder. They seem to have realised that it is demoralising for the troops and bad for Homeland Politics.

When wars nowadays have no clear cut goals, it becomes harder to justify 50,000 dead in a single day. So Technology is relied on as much as possible, because those proud parents back home will not be happy if they find out there son died because The Govt didn't want to send in an Airstrike instead of 500 troops.