3 ms·

> They've been saying that since the dawn of the US Military. I follow foreign policy issues closely, and I disagree. > The current Order of Battle of the ent

> They've been saying that since the dawn of the US Military. I follow foreign policy issues closely, and I disagree. > The current Order of Battle of the entire US Military calls for us to be able to fight two large scale wars simultaneously. We've done that arguably well/poorly with Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm not sure what you mean by that usage of "Order of Battle". IIRC US military planning calls for them to fight one war, a medium-sized one IIRC, and keep a second medium-sized war in a holding pattern. Iraq and Afghanistan are small wars against very weak opposition whose best weapons are IEDs. However, there isn't much here beyond claims with no basis. I'd be interested in seeing some evidence for it all.

SEJeff 10y ago
Having been in the US military, the command was always alarmist about troop sizing even in the blatant face of improving technology. We have counter-defilade rifles now (XM25). This puts the best part of a small mortar in the hands of an infantry rifle platoons. Does it mean you can get away with less artillery platoons and mortar squads? It might, yes. Does it mean you can retrofit counter-defilade capabilities into normal infantry operations allowing smaller units to do more? It does. This was my point. I saw this directly while I was in the service and it has always been that way. Yes we've done budget cuts under Obama for the US military, but we also had an unprecedented "surge" during GW Bush, meanwhile tech has been improving. Look at an older Nimintz class Aircraft Carrier with their 5000+ crew. Compare that to the newer Gerald Ford class carriers with their increased operational velocity and 2600 crew. Will some admirals tell you they're hamstrung due to having fewer soldiers? No doubt. Does that always reflect reality since they can literally do more with less? Nope! The "Order of Battle" is US Military terminology to denote the composition of a military unit to respond to certain threats. It is most commonly used from Division / Brigade level and lower by the intelligence officers, but goes all the way up to the Pentagon & Department of Defense. An order of battle is designed to solve the question of, "How do I shape a military unit to best defeat the adversaries they're pledged or expected to fight against?". Absolutely nothing in the US's two war doctrine says for us to fight a medium war and be prepared for another medium sized war. Not sure what you think, but Iraq and Afghanistan are both big wars where we've simply de-emphasized "winning" them to optimize for less soldiers dying. The land mass is enormous in both and since a war is basically about owning a piece of land, it is easier to judge the size by the size of the land being attempted to liberate. Also, if we were fighting a larger conventional war (sans nukes) we would likely win/lose much quicker with much lower casualties. The asymetric warfare we're currently waging is something the US simply isn't very good at (nor is any conventional military really). What do you think? For instance, I was a member of the US's first "Stryker Brigade Combat Team" (D Troop, 1/14th Cavalry, 2nd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division out of Ft Lewis, Washington). Our Brigade of ~5500 soldiers replaced the 82rd Airborne division of ~19000 soldiers and did equally well due to our Order of Battle emphasizing speed (via the Strykers mainly) over sheer massive footprint and heavy slow armor. This was due to the enemy not being heavily armored and primarily using small pickup trucks "technicals". In this area, we pretty much dominated it as you'd have a fully loaded Stryker squad across the city (Tall'Afar or Mosul primarily) before anyone even realized it as they were much quieter than say a Hummvee.

SEJeff 10y ago

Having been in the US military, the command was always alarmist about troop sizing even in the blatant face of improving technology. We have counter-defilade rifles now (XM25). This puts the best part of a small mortar in the hands of an infantry rifle platoons. Does it mean you can get away with less artillery platoons and mortar squads? It might, yes. Does it mean you can retrofit counter-defilade capabilities into normal infantry operations allowing smaller units to do more? It does. This was my point. I saw this directly while I was in the service and it has always been that way. Yes we've done budget cuts under Obama for the US military, but we also had an unprecedented "surge" during GW Bush, meanwhile tech has been improving. Look at an older Nimintz class Aircraft Carrier with their 5000+ crew. Compare that to the newer Gerald Ford class carriers with their increased operational velocity and 2600 crew. Will some admirals tell you they're hamstrung due to having fewer soldiers? No doubt. Does that always reflect reality since they can literally do more with less? Nope! The "Order of Battle" is US Military terminology to denote the composition of a military unit to respond to certain threats. It is most commonly used from Division / Brigade level and lower by the intelligence officers, but goes all the way up to the Pentagon & Department of Defense. An order of battle is designed to solve the question of, "How do I shape a military unit to best defeat the adversaries they're pledged or expected to fight against?". Absolutely nothing in the US's two war doctrine says for us to fight a medium war and be prepared for another medium sized war. Not sure what you think, but Iraq and Afghanistan are both big wars where we've simply de-emphasized "winning" them to optimize for less soldiers dying. The land mass is enormous in both and since a war is basically about owning a piece of land, it is easier to judge the size by the size of the land being attempted to liberate. Also, if we were fighting a larger conventional war (sans nukes) we would likely win/lose much quicker with much lower casualties. The asymetric warfare we're currently waging is something the US simply isn't very good at (nor is any conventional military really). What do you think? For instance, I was a member of the US's first "Stryker Brigade Combat Team" (D Troop, 1/14th Cavalry, 2nd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division out of Ft Lewis, Washington). Our Brigade of ~5500 soldiers replaced the 82rd Airborne division of ~19000 soldiers and did equally well due to our Order of Battle emphasizing speed (via the Strykers mainly) over sheer massive footprint and heavy slow armor. This was due to the enemy not being heavily armored and primarily using small pickup trucks "technicals". In this area, we pretty much dominated it as you'd have a fully loaded Stryker squad across the city (Tall'Afar or Mosul primarily) before anyone even realized it as they were much quieter than say a Hummvee.