US repeatedly defeated in high end wargames

a reply to: Zaphod58


I totally agree thou we are on the decline in allot, militarily, economically no matter what I am being told, the intelligence of the country is also on the decline. Unless we change our ways we may end up in a nuclear war..

Sure thou I get your point. After all these years thou I am surprised your making it...

a reply to: Bicent

I've been making a point about not underestimating potential opponents for years now. I just don't make it as often.

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Zaphod58

Our military is still geared to fight the way it was in the 90s. Instead of going smaller and more effective, they want to go for the sledgehammer approach.

It’s took me forever to find this article . In 2017 China’s armor tactics were still at the divisional level . Then they conducted non-simulated wargames.

A Chinese armored division ( red team) went up against a (blue team) that was organized to emulate a US armor brigade.

The outcome of the exercise blew them away . The blue team won 32 times and had 1 defeat. Against one of the best equipped armored divisions in the Chinese army. They suffered 70% simulated casualties . The red team political officer was caught crying on camera . Lol

Apparently that was enough for Xi. He cut 300,000 troops, finally decided to decentralize command to a joint command structure and initiate changes closer to our tactics and unit strength.

They even did a documentary on it shortly afterwards that was aired on regular TV ! This is speculation but I would guess he did that so he wouldn’t have to battle as hard with the old guard .

Here it is of course it’s in Chinese. But hey I guess we couldn’t get them to go full-fledged American and adopt the English language. For the hat trick . Lol

thediplomat.com...

I said Generals not officers or commanders.
Generals are more further back behind the battlefield. The officers and Commanders are usually the ones in the open battlefield. That is why I said Canadian commanders. Make sense? Chinese have good tacticians, but lack good commanders or officers. Read up on the three kingdom war. Tells you everything about it. Cao Cao didn't really have any good commanders at all. Literately all the good ones were on the other side, he wanted them to join his side. That is why his great army larger than the other two faction got defeated.

a reply to: penroc3

The gap that has grown over the last 30 years in offensive (conventional) capabilities is being closed el pronto like. That said, our advanced missiles can take out a satellite too. We now have the capability of deploying many small satellites in the event that we have our systems taken down in a 1st strike too. As you referred to as a backup. I look at this increase in conventional capability as a deterrent as Russia and China entertain bloodying our nose to see if we cower away. Increasing stand off in your weapons is a key strategic deterrent.

An EMP / invasion would be catastrophic for China, and the world. The world would fold in on them. What is not destroyed would suffer famine and disease as they are left for dead. Heaven forbid it all.

a reply to: Zaphod58

OK? Are we invading Vietnam again?

a reply to: Dfairlite

Seriously? Way to totally ignore the point.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Your point being? You're making apples to orange comparisons. Our military is specifically outfitted to maintain supremacy under the current international atmosphere. At no point was it changed fundamentally for guerilla warfare. The entire point is not to be able to kill an ideology, it's to give the US an undeniable advantage in mass warfare. Which it does quite well.

a reply to: Dfairlite

The air war in Vietnam wasn't guerrilla war, and was a disaster. I constantly hear about how amazing our military is, and how it's unbeatable, and yet our readiness rates suck, our flying hours have dropped precipitously, our procurement system is broken beyond belief, we've pissed away our tech advantage.

But we're the mighty USA. No one can possibly beat us, because our cause is just and our strength is that of ten.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Readiness rates are very misleading. The criteria that goes into readiness today is completely different from what it was, even two decades ago.

Here's a little food for thought. If the US is in such a precarious position militarily, why has no one taken advantage? Iran has tried to control the Persian gulf for decades. Yet, other than state propaganda claiming they do, they aren't even close. Has China expanded? They've threatened and made attempts, but always back off, why? Russia took advantage of the weakness/sympathy of Obama in Crimea, but that's on him and his policy not on our military. Why haven't they moved further west? It has been 5 years.

a reply to: Dfairlite

I know exactly what goes into readiness rates, and am well aware of their reality and how bad off some areas are.

No one has tried to take advantage of it because we've done so well at juggling and keeping our commitments. You can only do that for so long before it catches up to you. It's already starting to catch 7th Fleet.

Neither Russia or China is confident in their abilities at this point. The more time we give then to build that confidence, the harder it will hit if we get into a serious fight with them. And the more we bury our head in the sand and say no one can beat us because we're the US the worse things will become.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I'm not saying we can't ever be beaten. Eventually our supremacy will come to an end as it does with all world powers. I'm also not denying we have problems that we should address to keep our supremacy. All I'm trying to point out is that, even in our currently degradated state (which we are recovering from) no one can hold a candle to us on the stage of worldwide projection of force.

But yes, that could all change in the future. And china/russia/Iran are trying to close the gap as best they can.

Here is a video about the report and why the Blue side seems to lose. youtu.be...


This video will piss you off with the poor leadership and waste starting around 10:30 mark . youtu.be...

a reply to: Dfairlite

And as pointed out, we're not talking about worldwide projection of power. We're talking about us being at the end of long supply lines in their back yard. They don't have to project power, where we will.

a reply to: Zaphod58

We had the same problem going into ww2, we managed.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Ok, sure. Whatever you say.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I'm an optimist, especially when it comes to America. That said we could endure some bad times ahead to reforge our strength. No denying we're softer now, as a people, than at any point in our history.

I like this thread so I will add some more to it I suppose. I just do not believe the next world war will stay conventional for long. The opposing power will start with tactical nukes to try to even out the playing field air bursts, I dunno emps etc, then it will really hit the fan with intercontinental icbm’s sub launches etc. conventional war is obsolete in a sense right now until AFTER the nukes fly... then a totally new war doctrine will be made, and a really really bad way of life. At least this is my opinion. Where our flaws you mention will really be seen is if and when we goto war with korea again, we may see the glaring flaws in that scenario and will probably more than likely be the cause and start of this grand scaled world war. Speaking of tactical nukes mcarthur wanted to use nukes in the 50’s during the war, when the odds were against us... All I have is history and my translation of it to try and guess how we will react or how a ww3 will look like. If China and Russia both attacked at the same time ya that would be interesting without warning too like 10 mins from right now, ya that would be one hell of a surprise and our reaction will probably be a little slow etc. but we would see military build ups on borders etc. alerts would be made and troops and seamen and pilots would be at the ready etc. not to mention we have no idea what top secret weapon tech we have developed our in the desert either, for all we know we have death rays in orbit... I don’t want to get to out there but ww3 will be a nuclear one ☢️ pretty sure that is how she will end up... That is has been what has pretty much kept things peaceful FOR THE MOST part war scale wise since 1945.. Honestly I think water and the need for land is what the war will be started over, something dire and worth the risk of destroying the world.... 🌎

The deadliest enemy is complacency.

a reply to: Zaphod58

No one in US wanted the war in Vietnam first place. Just like no one will want war with China. It is going to be a lose lose. Only the idiots on top want war. The whole world doesn't want it.

I saw some posts from Zaphod about our military readiness.

You are right. Obama really gutted our military. I sat through his 8 year term and not only watched him gut our resources financially and manpower wise. But at the end of his term, he sewed seeds of destruction by forcing his transgender policy. It is my opinion that this political move divided the military along political and religious lines. They freaking forced the senior enlisted leadership to study up online trainings and books to present training to their junior officers and enlisted on the matter. Thank God for President Common Sense Trump! He stuck to his guns and removed this policy.

Our readiness is on its way back up. But Zaphod, you threw out a half truth there. Do you know the readiness of China or Russia?
LOL!!!!!

Did you know we have different readiness standards for our country than does China or Russia? Readiness is such a complicated subject,,, it is well beyond our paygrade or ability to understand because of the lack of classified information.
The low level readiness factors are not well classified, and thus are widely known. Manpower, funding, medical readiness, training readiness, funded exercises, etc comprise this 'low level' of readiness classification, and are what commanders are graded on. They are also the quickest and easiest to fix. These are the factors Obama drove down with his lack of funding. Equipment and technology are a much higher readiness priority. The implementation of technology and equipment in scenarios is even more highly classified.

Do you remember what we did to the Iraqi Army in 2003? I do, as I was there. We literally walked over them in a couple of weeks. The real battles were over before they ever began. At the time, Iraq was ranked the 5th most well organized military. Being in the military from before 2003 to current, I can say we are LIGHT YEARS beyond what we were in 2003. Like a billion light years. But not China. And not Russia. They have moved the needle, but no where near what we have.

I will speak no more on readiness. I don't mean to sound dismissive, but you can't throw a term like readiness around as a surface argument that we are behind these other countries and would thus lose a war. It is just not remotely true. Nor is it comparable due to differing standards and propaganda.

I do think we can be blind-sided. The blind side would need to be massive and clever. I don't put that beyond any of our adversaries. That is really their only option.