Why USA wins most wars

rossie1977

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

US navy is bigger than the next 17 navies combined.
what use is this ?

they could lend us one

citizen_p

US navy is bigger than the next 17 navies combined.
what use is this ?

it means they win wars easier....and they have them in rotations..... the spend like 7 montha=s at sea but 4 of them are spent travelling from usa east to around iraq/afghaistan then to australia and then home.

Capt'n Midnight

CCCP^ wrote: »

With the exception of Germany and Japan in the 2nd World War and Spain in the late 1800s or early 1900s, what other first world major power has the US fought against?

Most of the deaths in WWII were on the Eastern Front. (After that it was China. )

Russia defeated Germany, US trucks helped but Human wave , T34's and IL-2's are what won the war in Europe. US and UK bombing didn't have such a signifigant effect because raw material shortages where the limiting factor.

For Japan US submarines won the war, again it was raw material shortages. It was an all or nothing gamble. The odd thing here is that the Japanese were anti-communist and if either side had stepped back from sabre-rattling then they could have been allies and the Pacific war adverted.

Isoroku Yamamoto wrote:

If ordered to fight, "I shall run wild considerably for the first six months or a year but I have utterly no confidence for the second and third years."

Most of Spain's colonies had gained independence by then and the US had become a major power. But they were still fighting rebels in the Philipines for years afterwards,

Manic Moran

is that it you're offended

I'm not offended, I'm correcting what I believe to be a serious misconception which you harbour, I presume due to a lack of knowledge or interest.

If you said you were in the British Army I would say you might have a leg to stand on as they actually fight real wars, wether I agree with them or not.

The skillsets required for a position in the Irish Army are going to be pretty similar to that of the British or American militaries (except the toys are less expensive). That an Irish company commander does not put his skills into real-world practice routinely does not mean that he doesn't have to know those skills so that he can employ them if he ever needs to. For example, what if Timor had turned hot because of Indonesia, or if Liberia turned into a repeat of the Irish experience in the Congo? Or now, as people are worrying, Sudan makes a move into Chad?

honestly if you were not in the Irish army I will take back what I am saying

I was in the FCA a few years ago, does that count? :P

Social worker?? are you insane in what way to who?

Both to the troops under the command, and to the locals one interfaces with out and about. Most deployments these days are not conventional battlefields, they are 95% civil affairs, with officers spending a lot more time attending council meetings or resolving internal disputes as opposed to ordering people to shoot someone. This is particularly so for the Irish Army which has rarely had to fire a shot in anger. On the home front, a commander is responsible for the readiness of his men, and if their minds are on something other than the job, such as with problems at home, they are not only inefficient at work, they can be an active liability to the lives of their colleagues. A commander who thinks his responsibilities to his men stops after final parade in the evening is not a successful one.

Technical expert in what?

In order to employ equipment, and make sure the people under your command know their jobs, you must also know their jobs. Otherwise how do you know they're doing it right? You must be able to perform all the technical functions such as radio programming, vehicle maintainance or gunnery, weapons systems knowledge of use, capability and employment, and so on.

Orders are handed down thats all there is to it,

They are, but only to the appropriate level. A brigade commander does not tell a company commander where to put his men, what his support structures are going to be, how to implement rotations, or anything else like that. Similarly a company commander does not tell individual troopers where his sectors of fire are or what they should carry in their pouches (usually) and issues instructions no further down than the section level. Ideally, orders should be mission-oriented. For example, a battalion order may say "Company A seizes Hill 312", but does not say how Company A goes about doing it. That is something for the company commander to figure out and communicate briefly, efficiently, and effectively.

Things get even more decentralised in the peacekeeping role, where decisions with far-reaching political implications are made at the lower level, a phenomenon known as 'The Strategic Corporal.' (But really applies to any company-grade rank depending on the situation)

There is no pressure like you are suggesting compared to a Multinational Corporation, if thats the case what job did you end up in because I can tell you its mostly a lot worse.

You will forgive me for being a little skeptical of this claim. I can think of few positions in multinational corporations where life-threatening decisions are made under such time constraints, particularly when your own personal survival is at risk, which tends to be a bit of a distractor. I have no doubt that there is huge organisational pressure to achieve certain results in a multinational, but I'll be fairly sure that such pressure also exists in the military on top of the tactical decisions. I worked in IT for a bit. Nice relaxing environment, actually.

If there was a chance you or whoever was concerned you were going to be shot at, I never understand why people roll that one out, well why join?? wasn't that obvious that it might happen.

The job appeals to some people. Some for the challenge. Some for the intent of doing some good in the world. Some just because it's a family tradition. Regardless, once in a position where your life is at risk, the 'how you got there' bit is pretty irrelevant, the job requirements and external factors are still there.

It used to be that officers got the position on the basis of either who they knew or that they were from a more well to do background and therefore had a higher educational background.

Used to be, indeed. As I said in my previous post, such factors tend to no longer be an issue in a modern Western military.

I know of a few privates that have Phd's some that have masters and many that have degrees.

Good for them. This is a good thing, as far as I can tell. Why not have educated soldiers? Note that given the difference in job description between an officer and an NCO, the mere presence of a degree does not automatically mean that one should be an officer. Some people are better suited tempermentally to the NCO role, some people just don't want the extra responsibilities or work that comes with a commission, and some just want to play with the hardware.

Promotions aren't given out for that kind of thing in the PDF, Officers are given automatic promotion though, compared to what a private, or corporal has to do to what a Lieutenant or captain has to do???

I'm not sure I understand the question.

privates have limited interaction with officers and everything in anything to do The PDF is backwards, it is hole to put money into.

Separation between enlisted and officers is a good thing. Only one army that I'm aware of ever abandoned the officer/enlisted separation, the Chinese, and it worked out rather poorly for them so they went back to it.

US trucks helped but Human wave , T34's and IL-2's are what won the war in Europe

Amateurs study tactics. Professionals study logistics. In this case, the Red Army wouldn't have been able to fuel all those T-34s or truck bombs to the IL-2s without Studebakers. Not discounting the efforts of the guys in the tanks and 'planes, logistics are pointless without something on the sharp end of the line, but one cannot discount the effects of lend-lease.

NTM

Manic Moran

they could lend us one

Hmm. That chart's missing the Japanese Hyuga.



Granted, it's officially categorised as a destroyer.

NTM

An Fear Aniar

Merch wrote: »

the first encounters the US army had with the germans were in north africa and they were trounced. Not that thats an offence the Germans were experienced Ultimately it was airpower and their ability to diminish their access to resources and replenish them that defeated the germans and gave the Western fromt the advantage it needed, plus the Soviets had a greater number of available recruits.
and the US army soldiers had little or no combat experience.

They made up for it at the Battle of the Bulge.

.

Merch

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm not offended, I'm correcting what I believe to be a serious misconception which you harbour, I presume due to a lack of knowledge or interest.

I was in the FCA a few years ago, does that count? :P

NTM

I was in the PDF for over a decade so your experience or opinions based on the FCA doesnt count in my opinion, with a bit of luck it will be disbanded to save money.
Your opinion is not how it works really in the PDF.
You even answered a statement I didn't make??
I cant be bothered replying to it all, you are some sort of armchair expert.
Wars are stupid, they will happen, I'm glad we are not spending more but I cannot see why we are not spending less.

Stercus Accidit

Merch wrote: »

I was in the PDF for over a decade so your experience or opinions based on the FCA doesnt count in my opinion, with a bit of luck it will be disbanded to save money.
Your opinion is not how it works really in the PDF.
You even answered a statement I didn't make??
I cant be bothered replying to it all, you are some sort of armchair expert.
Wars are stupid, they will happen, I'm glad we are not spending more but I cannot see why we are not spending less.

"Location: Camp Atterbury, Indiana"


Hmm, must be boning up on his armchair expertise.

Capt'n Midnight

Manic Moran wrote:

Amateurs study tactics. Professionals study logistics. In this case, the Red Army wouldn't have been able to fuel all those T-34s or truck bombs to the IL-2s without Studebakers. Not discounting the efforts of the guys in the tanks and 'planes, logistics are pointless without something on the sharp end of the line, but one cannot discount the effects of lend-lease.

110%

Lend lease alone didn't win the war, yes it helped, yes it freed up the tractor factories to make weapons. Yes it shortened the war. But yes the Russians were able to move factories and workforce out of the range of the German invaders. And they got the Siberian troops back to Moscow in 1941.


Can't remember the proportion of US soldiers who were actually at the front line in WWII , was it only 1 in 3 ? and their survival rate was just as bad as WWI. Now I guess the rate is even lower since more can be done remotely, and the survival rate has gone up because of body armour. But the sharp edge of the wedge is still sharp.
D Day worked after the initial assault because of Mulberry and Pluto, as well as air superiority.


IIRC (and I can't remember where I got these stats from) in Vietnam it worked out at one enemy killed per B52 bombload or 400,000 rounds of ammunition. It's the old civil war thing of needing to shoot a mans weight in lead to kill him.

Manic Moran

I cant be bothered replying to it all, you are some sort of armchair expert.

As Mr Stercus alludes to, my military experience does not stop at the FCA. As it happens, I'm currently a company commander in the US Army. (Give me a week, my location will change to "Methar-Lam, Afghanistan".) I did not mention this before, partially because it's public knowledge on Boards, partially because the topic was US Army and I wanted to try to separate the two, and partially because I don't believe the veracity of my argument depends on who I am.

Having gone from enlisted to officer, I became personally well aware of the difference in perception between what it appears to a trooper in a line platoon officers do, and what officers actually do. It wasn't until I was on the other side of the fence that I knew the real difference.

NTM

Merch

Manic Moran wrote: »

As Mr Stercus alludes to, my military experience does not stop at the FCA. As it happens, I'm currently a company commander in the US Army. (Give me a week, my location will change to "Methar-Lam, Afghanistan".) I did not mention this before, partially because it's public knowledge on Boards, partially because the topic was US Army and I wanted to try to separate the two, and partially because I don't believe the veracity of my argument depends on who I am.

Having gone from enlisted to officer, I became personally well aware of the difference in perception between what it appears to a trooper in a line platoon officers do, and what officers actually do. It wasn't until I was on the other side of the fence that I knew the real difference.

NTM

If that is the case, then why bring up the FCA? and not that firstly, I am talking about the PDF and its associated bull, as i said if you were talking about being in a real army I would take certain things back, but the irish army is a world of difference and not just less expensive tools and less of them. It is backwards. Promotion based on some level of meritocracy strikes me as the way the US army works but all large organisation have their own political internal strifes regardless of hierarchy.
You have also implied you were in private work and the FCA and now a company commander.

Money spent on wars is a sickening waste to secure resources. I feel sorry for the grunts that are stuck in iraq and afghanistan, I would prefer not to be lugging an MG in that heat and when the agenda is so f**ck*d.

Overheal

Merch wrote: »

You have also implied you were in private work and the FCA and now a company commander.

I gather that after spending time in the FCA as a youth and then spending a few years in the US Mil, you do occassionally at some stage/rank/other get a few months of downtime where you are Reserve, not Active. In such times I could see where one might feel like applying for a seasonal position, perhaps in IT

Manic Moran

If that is the case, then why bring up the FCA?

You asked if I was ever in the Irish Army. Although the FCA technically counts, I am aware of the disdain often held by PDF towards the FCA, so I thought I had better ask for clarification appropriate to your point of view. I would not have brought it up had you not asked the question, much as I did not ask you about your background, the topic matter being more an issue of fact than of experience.

You have also implied you were in private work and the FCA and now a company commander.

I implied nothing. I outright said I was at one point in the FCA and that I at one point worked in IT, in direct response to your questions, and these are factually correct statements. I said nothing else as I do not believe it relevant to the conversation.

Money spent on wars is a sickening waste to secure resources. I feel sorry for the grunts that are stuck in iraq and afghanistan, I would prefer not to be lugging an MG in that heat and when the agenda is so f**ck*d.

Well, as they say, if you can't take a joke, you shouldn't have joined the Army. (I did my Iraq tour in a tank, mind, so I didn't carry a weapon, my weapon carried me! Still, the desert in a steel oven with no air conditioning is a little unpleasant...)

Now, whilst your opinion on the use of blood and treasure in the military is a valid one, that is a different and distinct issue to the job descriptions required to carry out such activities once the political decision is made.

NTM

Merch

Manic Moran wrote: »

You asked if I was ever in the Irish Army. Although the FCA technically counts, I am aware of the disdain often held by PDF towards the FCA, so I thought I had better ask for clarification appropriate to your point of view. I would not have brought it up had you not asked the question, much as I did not ask you about your background, the topic matter being more an issue of fact than of experience.



I implied nothing. I outright said I was at one point in the FCA and that I at one point worked in IT, in direct response to your questions, and these are factually correct statements. I said nothing else as I do not believe it relevant to the conversation.



Well, as they say, if you can't take a joke, you shouldn't have joined the Army. (I did my Iraq tour in a tank, mind, so I didn't carry a weapon, my weapon carried me! Still, the desert in a steel oven with no air conditioning is a little unpleasant...)

Now, whilst your opinion on the use of blood and treasure in the military is a valid one, that is a different and distinct issue to the job descriptions required to carry out such activities once the political decision is made.

NTM

I have no disdain for the FCA or reserve, in many respects there are guys there that act and are more professional than the PDF. However it is a matter of funding, it is a waste in a nuetral country. We would be better putting that money into something else...useful. But knowledge of how things are done there doesn't reflect any knowledge of how the PDF works.

I'm not going to get into an argument about what you said, to me it seemed as if you were suggesting you were in Private work, something about enjoying it?? now if you say now thats IT fair enough.
I dont know what you mean about if you cant take a joke dont join the army, I really only recal hearing from old sweats back then "dont volunteer" as in for anything.
I signed up, did what i was asked and left. Knowing the waste in the PDF and the return for the tax payesr money, it seems like a waste to me and the bigger the organisation the bigger the waste.
I agree, if a soldier is given an order it is not simply a matter of suddenly becoming a conscientious objector.
But the money spent by militaries would be better spent on education, health and research. When the disparities between the haves and have nots become great in the world, that can lead to trouble.

Manic Moran

Merch wrote: »

But knowledge of how things are done there doesn't reflect any knowledge of how the PDF works.

My point is that the internal politics of the PDF are irrelevant to the matter at hand. It doesn't matter if someone is promoted due to competence, they bought their commission, or they gave the general a blow-job. Once they are in the position they are in, the job requirements to be successful are the same.

to me it seemed as if you were suggesting you were in Private work, something about enjoying it?? now if you say now thats IT fair enough.

I was in IT. I may well go back to it in the future.

I dont know what you mean about if you cant take a joke dont join the army, I really only recal hearing from old sweats back then "dont volunteer" as in for anything.

It may not be a common phrase in the Irish military. Rule #1 in the US is probably the same, though: Never volunteer. The corrollary is Rule #2: Volunteer. You can get some pretty sweet deals by volunteering. The catch is that you never know in advance when rule #1 applies and when rule #2 applies!

But the money spent by militaries would be better spent on education, health and research. When the disparities between the haves and have nots become great in the world, that can lead to trouble.

That is one of the great political questions which has troubled governments the world over. The military is not a revenue-producing organisation. The catch is that it provides a skillset which, when it is required, can be met by no other organisation, and when it is required, it is pretty much a 'must have'

NTM

partyguinness

Over the last 20 years, they generally took on 'armies' that couldnt fight back. Easy really.