It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Capability of the U.S. Army

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 09:15 PM
link   
The U.S. Army is just about the most advanced and powerful offensive ground military force is the world. Since the end of the Vietnam War in 1975, it's gone through so many changes and so many improvements that now, it's as good as it gets and it's only beginning to get better.

Given that, what are all the general advantages of the U.S. Army? I mean, they pack such devestating firepower and the most advanced military technology, but what makes it all work?

Also, do you think the internal problems of the U.S. Army hinder it's ability to fight? Despite being the most powerful organization on Earth, it does lose a lot of battles, suffers the most casualties despite it's top-of-the-line training, and has worst personnel retention and satisfaction.




posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 09:22 PM
link   
tech and training are our biggest +'s..but one of the big disadvantagages are our numbers. it takes quit a while to train people to work as a good team and when a major conflict comes with an advisary that actually will fight back and is not fought in the desert....alot of our advantages will be gone. when we start lossing the trained troops..the partialy trained will have to do..and probably against #'s 3,4,5 times yours. Just like germany army in WW II, numbers, not training will prevail in a major conflict....



posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 10:12 PM
link   
The U.S. Army wouldn't be perceived as so powerful if it were not for it's ability to draw upon the strengths of the other branches of the military. The Armed Forces transitioned from the Air Land Battle doctrine to the Combined Forces doctrine in 1999, and this transition was implemented as problems with Command, Control, and Communication (C3) were mostly eliminated.

The key to success for the United States Military is it's ability to communicate and command all battle assets available. No branch of the military is fully capable without the others, and that lethal combination of specialized abilities that each branch provides is the greatest combat multiplier.

An example of the Combined Forces doctrine where the Army is concerned is it's use of F-16 Falcons and A-10/OA-10 Thunderbolt II for close air support. Another is it's almost dependent use of the AC-130 Spectre Gunship, which is an airborne weapons platform that is capable of destroying everything within the area of a football field within seconds.

So, in short, these are the general advantages of the U.S. Army. Most of the advanced technology now employed by the Army itself are to ensure a greater degree of survivability for soldiers on the lines. If you want to see the true triumphs of combat technology, look at the medical corps. Advances in combat medicine have ensured better than 90% survivability rate among litter urgent casualties.

Regarding internal problems in the military, they exist similarly in every army and they are problems that have always, and will always exist. Having been there, it's easy to understand that any attempt to eliminate internal military problems would eliminate the military itself. Such is the drawback of being so rooted in tradition, but without tradition, true esprit de corps would not exist.

And just a couple of clarifications:

We have not and do not lose a lot of battles, we have an excellent winning record. And the only war in which we suffered the most casualties was the Civil War.

And as far as retention goes, difficult it is to resist the highest quality of life in the world, a quality of life that the military functions to preserve.

DeltaChaos Out



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 02:49 AM
link   
We have an awesome army.

I'm amazed at the technological advantages we have. It was surprising how quickly the war with Iraq was over, and how few casualties there were.

The one unfortunate thing about our army is it is not that big. While decent-sized, I don't think we'd be able to compete with China.



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 03:04 AM
link   
Delta,
I agree with you 100% about the US military's superior C3 and the combined arms doctrine being the basis of our ability to win battles.

However, the true measure of power is the ability to bring the power to bear against the enemy. The US military's true strength lies in logistics. The US military's strength is based on power projection. There are many Armies out there who match us on technology and command and control. The US Army's main tactical communications systems are a French design.

The US is the only power that can truely project its power beyond its own borders. During the Iraq war, the US launched B2 sorties from the United States. The United States is the only country that can react to world events and respond militarily in a matter of hours. In flight refueling, carrier battle groups, MEU's, and the 82nd Airborne's ability to be in the air within 48 hours, makes the US military the stongest military in the world.

(edit for spelling)

[Edited on 22-2-2004 by Soldier]



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 11:05 AM
link   
That I did not know. It's funny that the French designed a com system that we are the only power on the Earth with the capability use.

[Edited on 22-2-2004 by DeltaChaos]



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Actually we use an old system the French designed and used to use in the 80's. There is better stuff out there and the more elite units use better stuff, but the mainstay of the army is the old French equipment.



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 11:23 AM
link   
the only thing i can add to this is i dont think as much of your army as you guys do!

I've read a report not so long ago saying that sweden has the most technologically advanced army in the world, not america. I will see if i can find the source for you shortly.


It was surprising how quickly the war with Iraq was over, and how few casualties there were


yeah well, there's plenty of evidence to show that Suddam was about to be pushed out of power before the war begun.....so essentially you walked into a country about to collapse, of course it was gonna be easy!! Also the Iraq airforce surrendered before the attacks begun - even though they showed you the US bombing their airforce, it was actually a war museum!! Sounds like propoganda to me?

as for the best training in the world? i think your far from it....there are military divisions such as the British 'Royal Marines' which has far higher standards of training.

anyway, please dont take offense to my input, i just think you guys missed the bigger picture....

Oh and DeltaChaos! i think you've lost more than a few battles....Vietnam would be a big one you missed...

Oh!!! and one more thing!!! we are talking about the country famous for shooting allies on the battle field here arent we???


[Edited on 22-2-2004 by DarkCircuit]



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Dark,

As I stated, the most important part of power is the ability to project that power to enhance a country's political agenda. War is just an extension of politics. Sweden very well may have a more technologically advanced Army than the US. Unfortunately for them, they have no way to project this power beyond their borders so it is useless on a political level. They probably could put up quite a defense against the US should there ever be a Swedish/US war. In the end, . to ., the US would win if it were an all out war.

In the end the US is more powerful than the Swedes because the US can influence them militarily while the Swedes cannot use military force to influence the United States.

This stands for all other countries as well, with the exception of nuclear powers.



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Also, do you think the internal problems of the U.S. Army hinder it's ability to fight? Despite being the most powerful organization on Earth, it does lose a lot of battles, suffers the most casualties despite it's top-of-the-line training, and has worst personnel retention and satisfaction.



I'm not sure where you get that we suffer the most casualties...I think the thing is that we've become so powerful that 500 casualties is seen as a lot.



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cutwolf

Also, do you think the internal problems of the U.S. Army hinder it's ability to fight? Despite being the most powerful organization on Earth, it does lose a lot of battles, suffers the most casualties despite it's top-of-the-line training, and has worst personnel retention and satisfaction.



I'm not sure where you get that we suffer the most casualties...I think the thing is that we've become so powerful that 500 casualties is seen as a lot.



Dead on in my opinon. We have no stomach for casualties anymore due to the fact we put so much belief in our invincible nature. I do agree that we are the strongest fielded fighting force on the planet but I dont think we take the most casualties. Look at all the pissant asian armies weve fought over the years, Id say 65,000 to an estimated 2million Vietnamese is a pretty damn good ratio. Another demonstration of how complacent our public is and how dedicated our boys in the service are.



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Soldier,
I wasnt stating that Sweden could ever defeat the us army, i was making a comment simply on the subject that america is not the most technologically advanced army in the world...

Also I think you guys would have problems in a war with countries such as China, Russia, North Korea, and obviously if a group of countries were to attack you, i think you'd be stuffed to put it politley.....all those nuclear power plants sat around undefended.....

also, i was arguing against this big-.ed remark that started the post

The U.S. Army is just about the most advanced and powerful offensive ground military force in the world

note this was originally about ground force not, projecting airforce bombers etc....

plus im sure i read about the Russians being able to project their power just as easily as the US when it comes to bombing (not just on a nuclear level). Plus the UK have their nuclear submarines spread throughout the world as we speak....again capable of 'Projecting Power'

I think the Americans have a strong army yes, just dont lie to yourselfs! your not indestructable, that was all i was trying to say....

[Edited on 22-2-2004 by DarkCircuit]



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Dark,

I totally agree. The thread kind of got off subject when we started talking about combined arms. These days you can't really just compare Armies or Navies. With the current C2 capabilities that ALL countries have, you have to take into account all aspects of a nation's military. Nobody just uses an Army, or just fights a naval war.

You are right, the US would have a hell of a time with the countries you mentioned. That's why we don't attack N Korea even though they admit they are developing nukes.

Yes, the Russian can bomb us, but they don't have the naval resources to invade. The US could bomb Russia, but we could never take and hold any territory over there.

The Chinese have a VERY large army, but none of thier power can be brought to bear against the US so the US is more powerful because we can use our power offensively against them. They have no Navy, a weak airforce, and poor technology, but the US would have a hell of a time in a drawn out war.

And finally, yes a group of countries could defeat the US if they are only attempting to push the US back to N America. The US Navy and Airforce can keep invaders out in that long trip over the unprotected seas. It would have to be one hell of an alliance to actually invade the US.



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 01:09 PM
link   
our army is kool...

i think it has VERY ADVANCED tech.

Thats the only reason our army is good thou...




posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 01:31 PM
link   
The best unit in the US army is the propaganda unit.
Russia has the best rockettechnology.

Invading and attacking 3rd world countries is not something to be proud of.
And as an occupational force it is still learning from Israeli troops.

But an army is nothing to be proud of when your country is financially broke.



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarkCircuit
as for the best training in the world? i think your far from it....there are military divisions such as the British 'Royal Marines' which has far higher standards of training.

anyway, please dont take offense to my input, i just think you guys missed the bigger picture...

Oh and DeltaChaos! i think you've lost more than a few battles....Vietnam would be a big one you missed...


No offense taken. You make great points.

Especially poignant is your observation that American military training ain't too hot.

I'm afraid that our reliance on technology and the cost it incurs has left little money left for intense, realistic, hard training. Also, as I witnessed first-hand in my seven years as an infantryman, the leadership are making a mistaken assumption that we can rely on said technology to give us the initiative on the battlefield in every instance. And we know what happens when we assume, don't we?

With regard to the big picture...

I must concede that the Vietnam war was one that we lost, but that was a war, which is merely a series of battles. The fact that we had a kill ratio average of 20:1 in the air, and 2 million dead compared to our 60,000 on the ground clearly shows that we did secure victory in a great many of those battles.

And I also have to agree that we have lost 'more than a few battles', but you must understand that the U.S. has engaged the enemy on the battlefield more times in the last 100 years than all of the rest of the countries in the world combined for the same period. Not that I think that's a good thing, but one might suspect that with that frequency of engagement, we should be eradicated as a nation. But, no, we are the most formidable military force in the world. That we know of...?

DeltaChaos Out



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent47

Originally posted by Cutwolf

Also, do you think the internal problems of the U.S. Army hinder it's ability to fight? Despite being the most powerful organization on Earth, it does lose a lot of battles, suffers the most casualties despite it's top-of-the-line training, and has worst personnel retention and satisfaction.





How about $1million to every vietnamese.
I'm not sure where you get that we suffer the most casualties...I think the thing is that we've become so powerful that 500 casualties is seen as a lot.



Dead on in my opinon. We have no stomach for casualties anymore due to the fact we put so much belief in our invincible nature. I do agree that we are the strongest fielded fighting force on the planet but I dont think we take the most casualties. Look at all the pissant asian armies weve fought over the years, Id say 65,000 to an estimated 2million Vietnamese is a pretty damn good ratio. Another demonstration of how complacent our public is and how dedicated our boys in the service are.



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 03:29 PM
link   
A point:
The US Army has the capability to destroy and be destroyed.
It's supposed high-tech capabilities only result in the destruction of it's allies (E.g. Gulf War, 22 of 28 (or so) british tanks lost were destroyed by US aircraft/forces.)
No one here can accuractely imagine a million people, and we dont get a comprehension of how many dead that is;
'ten dead is a tragedy, a million dead is a statistic'.
We cant stomach 500 dead anymore, but imagine what is would be like to transpose russian casualties in World war 2 to today. 20 MILLION. Imagine 1/3rd of the UK destroyed, or something like 1/30th of America.

Or how about WW1, where something like a man was being died per inch they gained during the Somme, 10,000 dying a day at one point, pretty sure it was a lot more than that though.

Just try to picture one million people. How big is your local school? Roughly 1000 people? Imagine that all kbeing killed, x1000.

Imagine your average british family, 2 parents, 2 children.
One MILLION dead would be 250,000 of these families.
One MILLION dead is roughly 1/6th the size of London.



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 08:45 PM
link   
So you, are going on a Kill to Death ratio assuming that would be the average for the whole war? Think about this... 1 tank takes on a country, that tank dies. Its 1 sent 1 killed. 1:1 We tie. Think about it.



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 09:05 PM
link   
People keep mentioning friendly fire incidents and saying it is a failure of US technology. It is actually the technology that keeps these numbers so low. Friendly fire happens in every war by every country, not just the US. Many of those tanks strayed outside of their designated area's and into an A-10 kill box. The numbers of friendly fire deaths in previous war was much higher than it is now. The battle field is a very cloudy place where anything can happen and it isn't always clear who is friend and who is foe. If there is someone in a place where they shouldn't be, sometimes they get killed. It is a tragedy but it is a reality of war.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join