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.

 

U.S. Army: A Comparison

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2004 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Let's compare the U.S. Army of 1986 vs. the U.S. Army of 2004.

1. Which is better overall?
2. Which is bigger?
3. Can either handle the missions the others were optimized for?
4. What were their concepts?

Anything else you can add, be my guest.




posted on Mar, 26 2004 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Weell aren't you going to put any work down?

Or are you just waiting for us all to do it for you?



posted on Mar, 27 2004 @ 12:58 AM
link   
1) Now - the tech has improved, thus so has the millitary.

2)'86 - it's not even close

3) I'd say '86 could handle stuff now, though not as well. But our millitary - especially our army - is a bit small now to take on the USSR, although since we have some awsome tech that could probably compinsate.

4) '86 - defeat the USSR. Now, out class everyone so much that we can't be touched by any other nation.

This is all my gut reaction to the questions - im gunna do some research to back up or disprove my claims...I'll be back.



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 01:58 AM
link   
US military of the mid 80s was in far better shape than it is today.

Tech toys are all very well but its been known for a long time that its people who fight , and there qualities are paramount.



posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 02:46 PM
link   
2 years ago I would have said that the Army, infantry specifialy was better trained back in 86, however now with almost every infantryman in the Army and Marines having seen atleast 6 months of actuall combat I would have to say the the military today is both better prepared on both a skill lvl and a tech lvl.



posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Don't forget the incorporation of women and "don't ask don't tell." Our military is not the same anymore, ask some of the old salts and marines who retired early because they couldn't give women orders like they gave men orders because they'd cry and end run them to the top and out of the service. Clintonisms that have not been rescinded have compromised the service, and demoralized our troops. Actually one of the worst things they did in the 1980's was to use the threat of depleted uranium shells as deterrence in a full out Nato encounter with Soviets gone wild scenarios. Unfortunately poppy Bush forgot they were a last resort deterrence capability and contaminated our soldiers with tons of the awful dust. When they came home they found out not only were they sick but their families were sick. Then the DOD called them nuts, and they still insist dangerous vaccines are "perfectly safe," and if not they "build character." Would Reagan have cut Veteran's benefits as Bush is now doing under a pretext that all those WW II guys are getting so old now and they don't need the care? Would Reagan keep our returning wounded Guard trapped in an unworkable medical care system? There are a litany of other weaking formulae especially privatization, or the sacking of the defense budget into corporate hands directly.

The fact is that all this top down lunacy as well as well documented fraud, waste and abuse is ruining the best military in the world. I'd say with only a few techno toys at parity, the 1980s military would kick our you know whats.

[Edited on 7-4-2004 by SkipShipman]



posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkipShipman

The fact is that all this top down lunacy as well as well documented fraud, waste and abuse is ruining the best military in the world. I'd say with only a few techno toys at parity, the 1980s military would kick our you know whats.

[Edited on 7-4-2004 by SkipShipman]


Exactly wars are fought and won by people and the training was alot better back then than it is now. The troops were much better trained back then than now. the loss of topgun and redflag was a very bad move and will lead USAF into a position like in the 1960s were tech was relied on instead of training.Ofcourse the cost of this war will mean further cancellations and cut backs making the problem more even accute.


It should come as no surprise that when USAF/USN now go up against serious opponents ,like the Luftwaffe or Israelis in mock airbattles, they get blitzed 20:1...hell the Indian airforce even beat them in the last mock air battle !

USA targeted 95 million metric tons of strategic delivery capacity in the 1980s. This was felt needed to support NATO and fight a second major war. With the end of the cold war this was cut in half so that during ODS they managed about 11 million tons with massive use of foreign flaged merchant ships.

TOday that capability must be noticably less since in the same deploynment period as ODS they deployed 1/3 as many forces.



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 03:51 PM
link   
The Army in 1986 of course!!!Thats because thats the year I enlisted!!!



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Yeah the good old days of the Army in '86. Racism, sexism, and bad, bad, music! I'd say today's Army would win. Not only does everyone have combat experience now (as stated earlier) but today's soldiers aren't little autotron drones. They are better educated and don't spew out buzzwords and catch-phrases that have been drilled into their heads. Ergo, the same old tired arguments about the 'good old days'.



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 06:13 PM
link   
You simple can't compare them due to the restructuring of the services to meet new threats.

There is no russian threat anymore, we didnt have to match tank against tank against the odds, now we're fighting middle eastern nations and terrorists, the emphasis is on speed and surgical power instead of one enormous thundering armored thrust.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join