Does the U.S. look at other world's militaries as a model?

The U.S. has always been unique in that it has a very particular organization and structure to its military. It was very much a made-in-the-USA model and hasn't really been adopted or duplicated anywhere else.

However, with this model of military having progessively shown itself to be more history than substance in both wars and in training, I have to wonder - does the U.S. defense establishment look towards other militaries of the world for anything we can adopt or model?

I was reading a book titled Lessons Not Learned: The U.S. Navy's Status Quo Culture. Its a very politically incorrect, contrevorsial look at the U.S. Navy and some of you may know this book as an essay by Roger Thompson titled "Is the U.S. Navy Overrated?" I was quite distressed to find out that many other Western militaries such as that of Canada, Norway, the United Kingdom, and even Chile were far superior to the U.S. in many key areas (naval aviation, submarine warfare). Assuming these limitations and weaknesses are acknowledged, I have to wonder if the U.S. looks towards these countries for advice and wisdom.

Finaly question, does it really make any sense to look at other militaries as a model?

I think the US Navy along with alot of stuff, is infact copied from the UK's.
As to other Wetsern navies being better than the US's this is no suprise because although the US has the greatest amount of ships this by no means means that they are they best in every area.

Somehow I think the US military looks at other military more as targets these days than any role model. Besides, the US military is so overbloated I doubt that there is any other military that could serve as an adequate model, because of the high tech nature of it and because it is, at least for now, a volunteer army.

And the US military has one fundamental problem, you can either have quality or volume, the two don't go well together, especially when the technological turnover of equipment means that typically you're changing equipment and strategy every few decades. The large number of friendly fire incidents with the US military might indicate this, or it might just indicate a PR failure, not quite sure on this one.

It is a serious mistake to underestimate any military, but the idea that the US military is second to anyone is ludicrous.

I haven't been in for a long time, but I'm pretty certain that the our military is open to new ideas wherever they come from and we have combined exercised all the time during which new ideas from other nations can be considered.

I don't have any hard information before me, but I'm pretty certain that the US has adopted many ideas from other nations over our course of our history, including the British, the American Indians, and every enemy we have fought, not to mention our allies.

Many on this board will insist that our military has retro-engineered aircraft from our extra-terrestrial visitors.

Ask any Marine infantry officer if he's ever heard of Carl von Clausewitz.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
The U.S. has always been unique in that it has a very particular organization and structure to its military. It was very much a made-in-the-USA model and hasn't really been adopted or duplicated anywhere else.

I don't know where you got this idea, but I think that it is perfectly absurd. Not only has the US military adopted ideas from other militaries, but we train many of the militaries of the world.

The US Marine Raiders were influenced by the Chinese who fought the Japanese prior to our entry into WWII.

The Raiders were created by an order from President Franklin D. Roosevelt, acting on proposals from Colonel William J. Donovan and Major (later, Brigadier General) Evans F. Carlson. Carlson, a former soldier in the Pancho Villa Mexican Punitive Expedition and World War I and later a Marine officer in Nicaragua and an Intelligence Officer of the 4th Marines in China, had spent years observing the tactics and strategy of Communist Chinese irregulars (Zhu De and the 8th Route Army in particular) as they fought the occupying Japanese, and had become enthralled with their version of guerrilla warfare.

en.wikipedia.org...

American infantrymen even today carry non-issue tomahawks into combat, a weapon made famous by the American Indians.

Modern-day Tomahawks have gained in popularity with the re-emergence of the "Vietnam Tomahawk" by American Tomahawk Company in the beginning of 2001. Modern-day Tomahawks designed by the late Peter LaGana included wood handles, a hatchet-like bit and a leather sheath and were used by select U.S. forces during the Vietnam war and are called "Vietnam Tomahawks".

The American Tomahawk Company's "VTAC" ("Vietnam Tactical Tomahawk") is in use by the US Army Stryker Brigade in Afghanistan, the 172nd SBCT Team based at Fort Wainwright, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division out of Fort Lewis, a Recon Platoon in the 2-183d CAV (116th IBCT)(OIF 2007-2008) and numerous other soldiers.

en.wikipedia.org...(axe)

[edit on 2008/6/20 by GradyPhilpott]

reply to post by GradyPhilpott

It is a serious mistake to underestimate any military, but the idea that the US military is second to anyone is ludicrous.

First, try finding where I said the U.S. military is second to anyone. You can't find it, because it ain't there.

Second, how is it ludicrous? You are supporting your argument with emotion and abstract concepts, yet I can (if I so desire) point out many factual instances that do show deficiencies in the U.S. military. I am also looking at the big picture, not what individual soldiers do in individual situations.

As far as adopting things from other militaries, I am not talking just weapons here. I am talking the more important matters regarding organization, structure, and institution, as well as training.

Its not being ludicrous, its being analytical and educational. I don't have the answers, which is why I am asking. Clearly defense reform is very much a politically incorrect topic.

reply to post by sweatmonicaIdo

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
I was quite distressed to find out that many other Western militaries such as that of Canada, Norway, the United Kingdom, and even Chile were far superior to the U.S. in many key areas (naval aviation, submarine warfare).

This is what you said and apparently you are too excitable to try to discuss this rationally.

"In many key areas" was the key statement. You implied that I said the U.S. as a whole was second to some, which is clearly not what I said.

Fox Newsing posts and threads may be appropriate elsewhere, but not here, it just don't work that way. You're definitely not the one to talk with on this topic.

Does the US use examples from other militaries as a model for its own armed forces? Simply, the answer is yes.

And why not? If someone else has a better idea than you, why not admit it's a better idea and use it? In the case of the military it might just save lives.

An excellent example of this is the US special forces. Many are based on British special forces (which were developed over the course of World War II).

One of the most elite and famous elements of the US military, Delta Force, is modelled on the British Special Air Service (SAS). The man credited with creating Delta, US Army Colonel Charles Beckwith, trained and worked with the SAS during the 1960s and enlisted their help in setting up, organising and training an equivalent unit for the United States. Thus, Delta Force was born in 1978 - not just using the UK's special forces as a model but actually asking them to help out in the creation of this unit.

I don't think anyone would deny that Delta is an exceptionally deadly military unit... so clearly the US does 'borrow' from other nations and has benefited from this.

If I was Secretary of Defense and the military was in need of dire reform, I would definitely look at the British Armed Forces as the preeminent model of excellence. Your guys seem to do everything right and well.

reply to post by sweatmonicaIdo


Sweat,
We definitely look at other Nations militarys for examples, models, equipment to utilize, avoid, operational structure...etc etc etc. Lots of peoples you have never heard or even thought of are working on this knowlege non stop.

I will remind you that the submarine snorkel is a Nazi German invention. Though updated to todays standards..our scientists and engineers were astonished to see them on Nazi submarines which survived in the dockyards. We immediately began incorporating this technology and know how to our submarines.

What we call Variable Wing Geometry in aircraft...adjustable swept wings in aircraft..was originated in Nazy aircraft design.
Once again..our engineers were astonished when overuninig a few Nazi air bases which were obviously bases where new designs were tested. To their shock what they found was a jet aircraft where the plane could be landed and the wings pinned into several swept back positions. They were dumbfounded at this discovery. Mind you now ..this turned out to be only a test bed for swept wing design but no one had ever thought of it. The mechanism for in flight adjusting of the wings had not been developed..but nonetheless this was still revolutionary. You can bet we immediately shipped out such an aircraft back to the states for study.

Yes we study many nations militarys for areas of improvement.

The Brits too have alot of problems with their military..not just us. It is mostly that outside of this cloistered enviornment ..one seldom hears or reads about it. You must pay close attention to certiain tell tale indicators.

I could say more about this but it will have to suffice for now.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Aye indeed. there are many of my countrymen on these boards who would argue a little over zealously about britains armed forces. Actually over here the media has been rather full recently of how drastically undermanned, underfunded and underequipped the UK Armed forces are.

But yeah, a military that dosnt adapt, that dosnt copy to a degree, will ultimatley be cumbersome and inneffective. I would be worried if the united states was not wearing its notebooks out with observations about both its enemies and allies and wondering how it could improve itself to meet new threats.

Look at how world war one got bogged down into trench warfare using tactics that had changed little since napoleonic times.

Yes it does pay to look at other militaries for inspiration because one can then make their military better by bettering the ideas it "borrows" from other militaries.