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

Perhaps one area of this discussion no one has addressed is combat time.
Much has been made of late about the number of tours in hazardous duty zones that Soldiers now have make. They survive one, only to know that they will be going back in due time. The chances of getting maimed or killed goes up.

Back in my day, the days of being drafted, you knew there was a good chance you would be going to 'Nam. But you knew without a doubt that once your 12 months was up, that was it, period. Many of us even got a "get to go home hit", shot up bad enough to get out of 'Nam, but not bad enough to die.

But you knew that if you made it out alive, that was it.

It's not like that in today's Armed Forces. And as the Armed Forces cut more personnel, that means fewer bodies to actually go and fight, which means more tours of duty in combat zones for each soldier.

Oh, you say we are through with wars where soldiers actually have go and fight?

Sure we are.

Reality: the budget for the Pentagon is going to be increasing over the next 5 years with the budget...not being cut. Programs are being cut. Programs being cut hurts districts which then those representatives are put into a position to vote against the budget and spew in accuracies about the budget being cut.

This is a good way to reduce defense spending, without harming the profits of the defense contractors and war profiteers.

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. Originally Posted by hungryhippo

Yup, I will agree with you... http://news.yahoo.com/360-million-ne...1TPXMAW4DQtDMD

Perhaps one area of this discussion no one has addressed is combat time.
Much has been made of late about the number of tours in hazardous duty zones that Soldiers now have make. They survive one, only to know that they will be going back in due time. The chances of getting maimed or killed goes up.

Back in my day, the days of being drafted, you knew there was a good chance you would be going to 'Nam. But you knew without a doubt that once your 12 months was up, that was it, period. Many of us even got a "get to go home hit", shot up bad enough to get out of 'Nam, but not bad enough to die.

But you knew that if you made it out alive, that was it.

It's not like that in today's Armed Forces. And as the Armed Forces cut more personnel, that means fewer bodies to actually go and fight, which means more tours of duty in combat zones for each soldier.

Oh, you say we are through with wars where soldiers actually have go and fight?

Sure we are. Originally Posted by Jackie S

+1 Excellent point! That grind combined with reduced compensation will lead to high turn-over rates; thus, degrade institutional knowledge and expertise.

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. Originally Posted by LordBeaverbrook

The Zimmerman Telegram, in this instance, serves to illustrate how a threat might unexpectedly materialize where no problem was previously perceived to exist. Besides, just because Mexico didn't act in 1917 doesn't preclude an aggressive act in the future. It's remarkable how so many posting here note Mexico's inaction at that time and then proceed to argue, with more than a tinge of irony, that situations are fluid and subject to "change".

Further, China is a potential future enemy, and China currently has a standing army four times the size of the Japanese Army in 1941. And China, unlike Japan, has the industrial base and a population to support its army for the long haul (and, also unlike Japan, nuclear weapons). A list of other potential, future enemies would include Russia and Iran, both of which also have sizable forces.

The lessons of the last war are always important. The Germans focused on developing a WWI weapon -- the tank -- in conjunction with a new weapon -- the Stuka (planes) -- employing Civil War tactics -- mounted infantry -- to hone its "Blitzkrieg" tactics. The Japanese observed the disastrous British amphibious operation at Gallipoli during WWI. What they discerned, unlike Western nations, was not that amphibious operations would always end disastrously, but rather, if done correctly, amphibious operations would be the tactic that would enable Japan to conquer Greater Southeast Asia. The U.S. learned from Vietnam. Right or wrong, the word was that "Charlie" owned the night in Vietnam; hence, the continued post-war development of night-vision tactics and technology (a nascent technology during the conflict) by the U.S. to deprive any future enemy of any such night advantage. It is, btw, a technology that the U.S. has utilized to great advantage against its enemies on the battlefield: ask UBL.

BTW, the "modern" and "up-to-date" American M4 Sherman tank employed in 1944 was a stop-gap measure (the "best" they could come up with absent proper preparation and readiness) -- not a weapons-system drawn from an obsolete stockpile of weapons. It was something Detroit could manufacture quick and easy ... and in quantity. Despite all of its "modernity", the M4 was in every way inferior to Germany's Panzer Mk V and Mk VI it faced in Europe. In a pure tank-on-tank battle, the standard American loss ratio was four Shermans for every Panzer kill. Each Sherman typically had a five man crew.

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

How so, considering Germany's State Secretary for Foreign Affairs -- Arthur Zimmermann -- admitted Germany sent the telegram?

And it was 97 years ago.

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

It's funny how you so readily concede that "things change" while implying that because Mexico didn't act in 1917 that that necessarily means Mexico will not take action at any point in the future; thus, reflecting a perpetual, status quo condition of "no change" which is contrary to your stated POV that "things change". Also worthy of note is that in the 200 years prior to the Great War, Great Britain and the German people had frequently allied against France. In fact, Britain's king, King George V, had forebears who were German (Saxe-Coburg and Gotha). Yet, within the span of a mere ten years and some weeks, there was a realignment of European powers and France and Britain entered WWI as allies against Germany.

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

Originally Posted by Old-T

What exaggeration, Old-Twerp? "97" was the original number cited, and it is correctly quoted above, Old-Twerp. It is you, Old-Twerp, who are misquoting when you here cite "100" and again misquoting here, where no intelligent, rational person can possibly explain your intentions behind your misquote:

Whit wast Odumbo's? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Originally Posted by Old-T

Another example of pre-WWII U.S. *readiness*.

+1 Excellent point! That grind combined with reduced compensation will lead to high turn-over rates; thus, degrade institutional knowledge and expertise.




The Zimmerman Telegram, in this instance, serves to illustrate how a threat might unexpectedly materialize where no problem was previously perceived to exist. Besides, just because Mexico didn't act in 1917 doesn't preclude an aggressive act in the future. It's remarkable how so many posting here note Mexico's inaction at that time and then proceed to argue, with more than a tinge of irony, that situations are fluid and subject to "change".

Further, China is a potential future enemy, and China currently has a standing army four times the size of the Japanese Army in 1941. And China, unlike Japan, has the industrial base and a population to support its army for the long haul (and, also unlike Japan, nuclear weapons). A list of other potential, future enemies would include Russia and Iran, both of which also have sizable forces.

The lessons of the last war are always important. The Germans focused on developing a WWI weapon -- the tank -- in conjunction with a new weapon -- the Stuka (planes) -- employing Civil War tactics -- mounted infantry -- to hone its "Blitzkrieg" tactics. The Japanese observed the disastrous British amphibious operation at Gallipoli during WWI. What they discerned, unlike Western nations, was not that amphibious operations would always end disastrously, but rather, if done correctly, amphibious operations would be the tactic that would enable Japan to conquer Greater Southeast Asia. The U.S. learned from Vietnam. Right or wrong, the word was that "Charlie" owned the night in Vietnam; hence, the continued post-war development of night-vision tactics and technology (a nascent technology during the conflict) by the U.S. to deprive any future enemy of any such night advantage. It is, btw, a technology that the U.S. has utilized to great advantage against its enemies on the battlefield: ask UBL.

BTW, the "modern" and "up-to-date" American M4 Sherman tank employed in 1944 was a stop-gap measure (the "best" they could come up with absent proper preparation and readiness) -- not a weapons-system drawn from an obsolete stockpile of weapons. It was something Detroit could manufacture quick and easy ... and in quantity. Despite all of its "modernity", the M4 was in every way inferior to Germany's Panzer Mk V and Mk VI it faced in Europe. In a pure tank-on-tank battle, the standard American loss ratio was four Shermans for every Panzer kill. Each Sherman typically had a five man crew.



How so, considering Germany's State Secretary for Foreign Affairs -- Arthur Zimmermann -- admitted Germany sent the telegram?


It's funny how you so readily concede that "things change" while implying that because Mexico didn't act in 1917 that that necessarily means Mexico will not take action at any point in the future; thus, reflecting a perpetual, status quo condition of "no change" which is contrary to your stated POV that "things change". Also worthy of note is that in the 200 years prior to the Great War, Great Britain and the German people had frequently allied against France. In fact, Britain's king, King George V, had forebears who were German (Saxe-Coburg and Gotha). Yet, within the span of a mere ten years and some weeks, there was a realignment of European powers and France and Britain entered WWI as allies against Germany.



What exaggeration, Old-Twerp? "97" was the original number cited, and it is correctly quoted above, Old-Twerp. It is you, Old-Twerp, who are misquoting when you here cite "100" and again misquoting here, where no intelligent, rational person can possibly explain your intentions behind your misquote:



Another example of pre-WWII U.S. *readiness*.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

IBH, this is an excellent post. The one thing I would say about China being a potential enemy, though, is that we should play them against Japan. They harbor great animosity towards Japan.

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.

Originally Posted by Old-T

What exaggeration, Old-Twerp? "97" was the original number cited, and it is correctly quoted above, Old-Twerp. It is you, Old-Twerp, who are misquoting when you here cite "100" and again misquoting here, where no intelligent, rational person can possibly explain your intentions behind your misquote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

If you shut your mouth and engage your brain more you might only look stupid half the time you post.

QUIZ: How many years in a century?
ANSWER: 100.

Try reading in context. I quoted EX, not YOU, poked fun at HIM for his commenting that 97 years was a century. And to anyone who TRIED to comprehend my post (obviously leaving you out) it was evident that I was joking with him.

You are so sensitized to having people attack your stupid comments that even when something isn't a jab at you, you over react, That overwhelming sense of guilt and inferiority you have must really make your life miserable.

[I can't wait until you fume and twist until you figure out how to argue that 97 years IS actually a century. You can't stomach NOT having the last word about everything, even if it is a nonsensical, stupid last word, can you? The over/under in Vegas is 5 min and 30 sec.]

By the way, as for the rest of your post #50 I actually agree with a lot of your points. Except about the authenticity of the Zimmerman telegram. From your comment on that it is obvious what branch of the Army you were NOT in.

If you shut your mouth and engage your brain more you might only look stupid half the time you post.

QUIZ: How many years in a century?
ANSWER: 100.

Try reading in context. I quoted EX, not YOU, poked fun at HIM for his commenting that 97 years was a century. And to anyone who TRIED to comprehend my post (obviously leaving you out) it was evident that I was joking with him.

You are so sensitized to having people attack your stupid comments that even when something isn't a jab at you, you over react, That overwhelming sense of guilt and inferiority you have must really make your life miserable.

[I can't wait until you fume and twist until you figure out how to argue that 97 years IS actually a century. You can't stomach NOT having the last word about everything, even if it is a nonsensical, stupid last word, can you? The over/under in Vegas is 5 min and 30 sec.] Originally Posted by Old-T

Considering you're the ignorant originator, Old-Twerp, how is it you ignorantly gloss over and fail to acknowledge that your ignorant, so called *jest* is also an insult conspicuously directed at IBH, Old-Twerp? Why is it you persist in believing, and ignorantly continue to expect, that you are entitled to lob insults without rebuttal, Old-Twerp?

By the way, as for the rest of your post #50 I actually agree with a lot of your points. Except about the authenticity of the Zimmerman telegram. From your comment on that it is obvious what branch of the Army you were NOT in. Originally Posted by Old-T

Zimmermann admitted Germany sent the telegram, Old-Twerp, and you haven't cited any evidence -- let alone credible evidence -- to the contrary, Old-Twerp.

Considering you're the ignorant originator, Old-Twerpignorant, so called *jest* is also an insult conspicuously directed at IBH, Old-Twerp? Why is it you persist in believing, and ignorantly continue to expect, that you are entitled to lob insults without rebuttal, Old-Twerp?
If you actually believe that jab at EX was somehow a insult at YOU, then you have passed the event horizon of self-centered myopic world view. Remember where we are? The Politics forum? And you think THAT even qualifies as an insult, much less a significant one? Wow.

Zimmermann admitted Germany sent the telegram, Old-Twerp, and you haven't cited any evidence -- let alone credible evidence -- to the contrary, Old-Twerp. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Reaffirmation that you were not in the Signal Corps. You are correct, I did not cite evidence. I suspect some on here understand, and others like you don't. Go right ahead and believe what you wish, be happy in your little fictional world. You don't really need to know. And anyway, the Zimmerman telegram is not the critical part of your argument--the rest of it actually hold water without it. But since I made the comment you feel the overwhelming need--the addiction--to argue against it. Good for you IB, you saved humanity once again--you can hang up your cape and tights until tomorrow (but you won't).

If you actually believe that jab at EX was somehow a insult at YOU, then you have passed the event horizon of self-centered myopic world view. Remember where we are? The Politics forum? And you think THAT even qualifies as an insult, much less a significant one? Wow

Reaffirmation that you were not in the Signal Corps. You are correct, I did not cite evidence. I suspect some on here understand, and others like you don't. Go right ahead and believe what you wish, be happy in your little fictional world. You don't really need to know. And anyway, the Zimmerman telegram is not the critical part of your argument--the rest of it actually hold water without it. But since I made the comment you feel the overwhelming need--the addiction--to argue against it. Good for you IB, you saved humanity once again--you can hang up your cape and tights until tomorrow (but you won't). Originally Posted by Old-T

You reaffirmed you are a disingenuous liar, Old-Twerp, when you deny your post wasn't primarily intended to be an insult.

Regarding the Zimmerman Telegram, Old-Twerp, your non-substantive insinuations do not refute known, historical facts:



"When asked to deny the authenticity of the telegram, German State Secretary for Foreign Affairs Arthur Zimmermann responded, on 3 March 1917, 'I cannot deny it, it is true'" (p. 157, The Zimmermann Telegram, by Tuchman (2004)).


Telegram that brought US into Great War is found
By Ben Fenton12:01AM BST 17 Oct 2005

An original typescript of the deciphered Zimmerman Telegram, one of the greatest coups mounted by Britain's intelligence services, has been discovered.

The document is believed to be the actual telegram shown to the American ambassador in London in 1917 that proved Germany's hostility to the United States and guaranteed President Woodrow Wilson's entry into the First Word War....

It was intercepted and deciphered by Room 40, a predecessor of GCHQ, the Government's top secret listening post, in January 1917....

[An] official historian of GCHQ found it while researching an "official", that is to say secret, history of the organisation....

The decrypted message showed Arthur Zimmerman, the German foreign minister, instructing his representative in Mexico City to persuade the Mexicans to invade America.

In exchange, Germany would guarantee the "reconquest" of Texas, New Mexico and Arizona, lost by Mexico to America 70 years earlier.

Zimmerman was assuming America would soon declare war on Germany anyway because, as was mentioned in his telegram, the Kaiser's navy was about to revive its policy of "unrestrained submarine warfare". This had cost many American lives when the Lusitania was sunk off Ireland in 1915. But even after the Germans announced their new policy on Feb 1, 1917, President Wilson held back.

The British had intercepted the telegram as the message passed along American-owned cables through London to Johann von Bernstorff, the German ambassador in Washington, on Jan 16.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...und-found.html

One Zimmerman gets us into war with Germany, another gets us into a race war. Fucking Zimmermans!!!

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. Originally Posted by Old-T

Yes, this is a simple version of what I experienced in the system but it is accurate for it's simplicity. You want a ship built. You hire designers based on the lowest bid and you give them absolutely everything you want it to do or be capable of doing. They design a ship. You pick the one that works best for you. You post a bid to shipyards to build the ship according the exacting demands of the design. The lowest bidder wins (except for submarines and aircraft carriers because there is only one contractor). They start building with a published schedule. After they have to order additional supplies and hire more people the ship is NOT finished on time. The government is still paying them for something that is supposed to be done and paying for additional materials that were not part of the contract. In fact, the contractor anticipates cost overruns and low balls the bid to get the job. Try this in the civilian world a couple of times.

Yes, this is a simple version of what I experienced in the system but it is accurate for it's simplicity. You want a ship built. You hire designers based on the lowest bid and you give them absolutely everything you want it to do or be capable of doing. They design a ship. You pick the one that works best for you. You post a bid to shipyards to build the ship according the exacting demands of the design. The lowest bidder wins (except for submarines and aircraft carriers because there is only one contractor). They start building with a published schedule. After they have to order additional supplies and hire more people the ship is NOT finished on time. The government is still paying them for something that is supposed to be done and paying for additional materials that were not part of the contract. In fact, the contractor anticipates cost overruns and low balls the bid to get the job. Try this in the civilian world a couple of times. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I agree with what you say, but it is only part of the story and part of the problem. That situation can only really happen on a cost-plus contract, but because we have seen the number of companies who build aircraft, ships, etc., shrink, the gov’t is at a disadvantage trying to get companies to bid on Firm Fixed Price contracts. And the more cutting edge the system—therefore the more development risk—the less likely anyone will bid a FFP.

Second, because of the way the gov’t has set up the FAR (the rules for acquiring things) we not only encourage low-balling, we make it almost impossible for an honest bidder to get a big developmental contract.

Third is the gov’t’s bureaucracy in making the timeline ridiculous. Between operators refusing to do serious budget constrained thinking up front, the absurdity of one-year budgets for key pieces, the distrust between the services and OSD, and the insistence of pretending a ship captain or fighter pilot or tank driver is magically the best person to do systems engineering we take up to 15 years to figure out what we think we want to buy.

Once we put that out for bids we change the administration, or the world changes around us, or the budget reality changes, or the technology changes—and we go back to the contractor post award and say, “You know that tank we agreed you should build for us? Well, instead of a top speed of 20 MPH and carrying 100 rounds of ammo, we decided the new likely adversary means we need it to go 50 mph and we’ll trade off 60 of the 100 rounds. The weight stays the same so it should be no big deal for you to modify the design, right?” Wrong, of course. We politicize the initial requirement (or ask today’s warfighter what they will need in 30 years and somehow think he is the best person to know—STUPID!!) and then wind up making major changes in requirements post contract award. And we pay the price, and then complain that it was all the sleazy contractor’s fault. No, it is a team effort at stupidity, greed, and politics.

Finally, when there is a change in the contract the price adjustment is negotiated between lawyers/engineers/financial folks on both sides. Typical team makeups:

Gov’t: 6 people, good energetic JAG Lieutenant, a program manager with 12 yrs experience, a financial person, and a couple engineers.

Company: 15 people, lawyers average 20 + years of corporate litigation experience and make 4x what the JAG Lt makes. The cost analyst used to be a 10 yr cost analyst for DoD until the company waved a 300% raise in front of him (real numbers by the way) to change sides. The company program manager is a retired military guy who used to be the gov’t PM’s boss 10 years ago.

Guess who generally gets the better of the negotiation table. And even with equal experience/competence in the negotiating teams, the gov’t is inherently at a disadvantage because they are the ones going in asking for the contract change in most cases. When we tie the gov't side's hands behind their packs with bad FAR rules, poorly thought out requirements, and a less experienced team compared to the companies, why should we be shocked at the results?

Every few years DoD relooks at the problem. For at least the past 25 years they always come up with essentially the same fixes--and then don't implement them. Why? Because it would significantly upset the rice bowls of too many congressmen ($$ into their districts), and senior operators who think because they are the best at using this generation of equipment the must be the best at thinking about the future. Every service chief got there by being the best infantry man or sub driver or pilot--not for their skills at steering the "corporation" that is the Navy or Army forward. This whole issue is undergoing major relook in DoD and in the Air Force as we speak. There are some people pushing for real changes. We may see some, but I am not holding my breath. I hope I am wrong.

Yeah, but you still play with shit...