Pentagon Plans to Shrink Army to Pre-World War II Level

+1 Exactly!

BTW, here's a couple of pictures typifying the U.S. Army's pre-WWII *readiness*: mock-plywood tanks mounted on truck chassis and bicycle tires. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You dumb shit those are pics of German tanks in the inner war period. Not American.

You dumb shit those are pics of German tanks in the inner war period. Not American. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

You're the dumb-fuck, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. Those mock-ups -- absent real tanks for training -- were used by American troops during the "Louisiana Maneuvers".

You're the dumb-fuck, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. Those mock-ups -- absent real tanks for training -- were used by American troops during the "Louisiana Maneuvers". Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Try Google image they are from 1929 In Germany. Moron

Try Google image they are from 1929 In Germany. Moron Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Damn, Ekim, you're right. My source misidentified them.

Well I will retract the moron part.

The first production US tank was the M2. It was produced in 1935 and only a 100 were made. It was replaced by the Stuart, Lee, and Grant designs.

The first new German tank was the Mk 1. It was produced in 1934 and over 1,000 were produced.
The Panzer Mk II was produced at the same time and thousands were produced over eight years.

The M4 Sherman tank reached production in 1940 but only in limited numbers.

Yes, the Germans were way ahead of us when World War II broke out. The French had better and more tanks but didn't know how to use them.

BTW, 97 years ago this month: 1917, the British handed a United States ambassador a decoded copy of the Zimmerman Telegram wherein Imperial Germany was trying to enlist Mexico as an ally and wherein Germany encouraged Mexico to invade the American Southwest to keep American troops out of Europe. Just a FYI. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Which means nothing since Mexico was not foolish enough to even try. Today they would be cutting their own throats since we are their biggest trading partner. Duh.

Planners and war apologists are always fighting the last war and it was a good thing that we didn't have a large army at the start of WWII. We did have a large navy and look at what it cost us at Pearl Harbor. The fact of the matter is that not having a large infrastructure meant we were less eager to go to war and didn't have to throw away a large infrastructure (or go to war with it and have tons more soldiers killed) and start all over. War changed significantly on the land (tanks), air and sea from 1939 or '41 until 1945 and anything we would have had stockpiled would have been outmoded and almost dangerous to our troops.

So now the "last war" is alternatively a large land war in Asia or the War on Terror as it was fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. Though we are continuing to fight terrorism and will for a log time, I strongly doubt that the next real "war" we engage in will be either of those or that we will be all that ready to fight it. I know we will have to adapt and ramp up because the battle plans never survive the first minute of battle (unless you plan to lose).

Reducing overall troop size and investing in a more professional and flexible battle force is not a bad idea, however, how many of you are aware that fully 50% of the DoD budget goes for cost overuns on (often old and mostly obsolete) weapons system? In many ways I would like to reduce that and not the fighting force, but that extra money is mostly a subsidy for defense contractors and will not be done away with due to lobbying and revolving doors between those defense contractors and the senior ranks of the military. That is where your real waste is and real savings (on the order of $300 billion a year) can come from.

What you say about World War II readiness is not correct. We did not have a large navy when the war started and the size of the navy had a lot to do with Japanese aggression. At the close of World War II the United States Navy consisted of over 1600 combatant ships. That included over a dozen aircraft carriers and dozens of "jeep" carriers. Had the United States had only eight carriers in 1941 (instead of 3 1/2) would the Japanese have rolled the dice as they did? Historians don't think so. The lack of readiness helped to start the war.

I don't know the exact number but a great deal of the DOD spending is to private companies with cost overruns. So why is this White House going to punish the innocent instead of the guilty. A sailor with 12 years in had nothing to do with a nuclear submarine two years behind schedule and $200 million over budget. Is Electric Boat going to take a hit? Nope, it is that sailor and his (or her) family that is going to get hurt. Its real simple (I mean really simple), hold the contractors to their promises. If they low ball a bid to win it and then pump up their costs afterwards, then take them to court. Withhold their money and investigate for fraud. There is a lot of money to be made doing things the right way. Don't take it out on the men and women in uniform...and ultimately this country.

What you say about World War II readiness is not correct. We did not have a large navy when the war started and the size of the navy had a lot to do with Japanese aggression. At the close of World War II the United States Navy consisted of over 1600 combatant ships. That included over a dozen aircraft carriers and dozens of "jeep" carriers. Had the United States had only eight carriers in 1941 (instead of 3 1/2) would the Japanese have rolled the dice as they did? Historians don't think so. The lack of readiness helped to start the war.

I don't know the exact number but a great deal of the DOD spending is to private companies with cost overruns. So why is this White House going to punish the innocent instead of the guilty. A sailor with 12 years in had nothing to do with a nuclear submarine two years behind schedule and $200 million over budget. Is Electric Boat going to take a hit? Nope, it is that sailor and his (or her) family that is going to get hurt. Its real simple (I mean really simple), hold the contractors to their promises. If they low ball a bid to win it and then pump up their costs afterwards, then take them to court. Withhold their money and investigate for fraud. There is a lot of money to be made doing things the right way. Don't take it out on the men and women in uniform...and ultimately this country. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I think you make a good point here about deterrent effect, but what about the temptation to use all that fancy stuff we make?
It would be nice to hold people to their bids, but they are a crafty bunch, defense contractors, and they deliver votes and money to sitting congressmen who tend to love their jobs.

Would anyone agree with me that cyberwarfare is a bigger threat than anything else. Warfare changes throughout the ages and maybe 1s and 0s is the new way wars will be fought for the most part.

I would rather send a pay check to a servicemember who is ready, willing, and able to work for it,
than a 4th generation welfare recipient, who can, but won't. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I thought you loved your parents, Medicare Leech!

BTW, 97 years ago this month: 1917, the British handed a United States ambassador a decoded copy of the Zimmerman Telegram wherein Imperial Germany was trying to enlist Mexico as an ally and wherein Germany encouraged Mexico to invade the American Southwest to keep American troops out of Europe. Just a FYI. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The authenticity of the Zimmerman Telegram is, to put it mildly, questionable.

What you say about World War II readiness is not correct. We did not have a large navy when the war started and the size of the navy had a lot to do with Japanese aggression. At the close of World War II the United States Navy consisted of over 1600 combatant ships. That included over a dozen aircraft carriers and dozens of "jeep" carriers. Had the United States had only eight carriers in 1941 (instead of 3 1/2) would the Japanese have rolled the dice as they did? Historians don't think so. The lack of readiness helped to start the war.

I don't know the exact number but a great deal of the DOD spending is to private companies with cost overruns. So why is this White House going to punish the innocent instead of the guilty. A sailor with 12 years in had nothing to do with a nuclear submarine two years behind schedule and $200 million over budget. Is Electric Boat going to take a hit? Nope, it is that sailor and his (or her) family that is going to get hurt. Its real simple (I mean really simple), hold the contractors to their promises. If they low ball a bid to win it and then pump up their costs afterwards, then take them to court. Withhold their money and investigate for fraud. There is a lot of money to be made doing things the right way. Don't take it out on the men and women in uniform...and ultimately this country. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

That is an amazingly simplistic and inaccurate understanding of how the DoD requirements/acquisition process works. I'll try to find time to correct it' but I don't have the time now.

The authenticity of the Zimmerman Telegram is, to put it mildly, questionable. Originally Posted by Old-T

And it was 97 years ago.

As if nothing has changed in the intervening century.

And it was 97 years ago.

As if nothing has changed in the intervening century. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Don't exaggerate! Only 97, not 100! IB will come after you for misquoting him.