5 ms·

We should be very careful about drawing conclusions from Iraq or Afghanistan on potential performance of US army against competent and motivated opponent. Both

We should be very careful about drawing conclusions from Iraq or Afghanistan on potential performance of US army against competent and motivated opponent. Both Iraqi army in 2003 and Taliban in 2001 just melted away deciding not to fight. Time that it took to capture Fallujah is much better example of what could have happened if Iraqi were motivated. Almost 2 months to capture city with only 4k poorly trained enemy fighters with no heavy weapon at cost of 100 American dead and 500 wounded. At that time US had full air supremacy and full attention on that small battle. My opinion is that US is up for rude awakening on ineffectiveness of US army when/if real fighting starts.

alephnerd 3y ago
It depends on the kind of fighting. If it's a conflict between the US and large regional powers (eg. Russia, China, India, UK, etc) assuming combatant morale holds it would be a bloodbath on both sides. Most regional powers now have the ability to manufacture weapons systems and train soldiers up to par with the where the U.S. was in the 1990s and 2000s now, which means our relative power is much less than in the 1990s or 2000s, when the only near peer was Russia. On the plus side, we are lucky a number of our allies have stronger power projection capabilities now (eg. SK modernization, Japan'a rearmament, Türkiye's military modernization, Poland's modernization, etc). That said, the Ukraine-Russia War does highlight how bloody a war between near peers can be.
- ahoka 3y ago
  I generally agree with you, but Russia can’t even manufacture weapons up to par with SU in 1980s.
  - greedo 3y ago
    They can't manufacture them in quantity, but qualitatively they have surpassed 80's era weaponry. From ICBMs to cruise missiles and SAMs, they are a step above what they had before. Tanks are improved as well. The Su-57 appears to be a competently designed 5th gen aircraft, and Russian helicopters are logical progressions of USSR designs. What Russia can't do is afford any of this. Forget the sanctions, their economy is small, and not willing to under go the hardships of the communist era. So they've been forced to use older gear, and their newer gear has been crushed in combat. And don't forget that most militaries have old gear. B-52, B-1, B-2, etc are old old airframes. M1 is an old tank design (though it has been upgraded heavily). Bradleys are an old ICV design, again upgraded heavily. But the US still uses M113 from the 70s in some units, the Blackhawk and Apache are from the 80s, and we have ships in the USN that are almost old enough to qualify as senior citizens.
    - dixie_land 3y ago
      Old does not necessarily mean obsolete, A-10 still beats F-35s by a large margin on the job it's assigned to do, and cheaper
      - greedo 3y ago
        This is ridiculous. The A-10 was designed to fight the Soviets in Germany. And like the AH-1 Cobras, it was expected to have a short life span fighting anywhere near Soviet air defenses. Do you know what A-10s have done for the majority of their missions in the last decade? Flown high with JDAMS and loitered, waiting for a call. The gun is all sexy, but just not used enough. And the A-10 would be crushed over a battlefield like Ukraine. Hell, even the B-1 was used for CAS missions in Afghan because it could get their fast, and had better loiter time than most other aircraft. Of course the wisdom of using $300M+ bombers in this manner is questionable. My point wasn't that old is bad, but that all militaries use old gear. The new gear is often enhancements to old gear.
        dredmorbius 3y ago
        OP might better have read "the A-10 exceeds the F-35 at its assigned mission", that is, the A-10 is the more capable aircraft for close-air support, where air superiority has been achieved. The F-35 likely exceeds the Warthog in other aspects, however.
    - selimthegrim 3y ago
      How's that T-14 assembly line coming along? Or the T-90 for that matter? Have they shown any ability to make SU-57s at scale?
      - greedo 3y ago
        Two things are affecting their production capacity; sanctions and $$. Even before they invaded Ukraine in 2014, they had limited funds for anything. Their economy is just too small to support their goals. Most of their design bureaus depended on foreign sales to stay alive. The only military branch that receives consistent funding is their nuclear systems. And then when you combine the impact of sanctions, it becomes much more challenging. Most of their precision machinery is imported from Europe, and as spare parts start to be consumed, this will impact their production rates as well.
idontwantthis 3y ago
The more relevant example is Iraq 1991. In a standup fight, the 4th largest army in the world was obliterated and no one in America would know if they didn’t read the newspaper.
greedo 3y ago
"My opinion is that US is up for rude awakening on ineffectiveness of US army when/if real fighting starts." Possibly. Though units that fought in both Afghanistan and Iraq during those time periods would argue with you about the fighting. What can be said definitively is that the US largely fought in small unit actions/light infantry compared to the Fulda Gap style battles foretold in Tom Clancy novels. The US military is huge though, and has incredible resources it can bring to bear in a conflict. Logistically, the US is unmatched. It has the reach of an empire and can bring force to most regions in a matter of a few hours. Its deployed military technology is still much superior than any potential opponents despite their best efforts. Would losses be huge? Any peer conflict will have huge losses (even assuming the conflict doesn't break past the nuclear threshold). The war in Ukraine has resulted in roughly 500K casualties. Even a conflict over Taiwan, which would largely be a naval battle, might see high US casualties. [Note; Fallejuah took a long time because there wasn't unity of command; two separate battles, different organizations, and a desire to appear civilian-friendly. If the US was fighting to recapture Crimea, there would be no concern about appearing civilized. People need to remember Sherman's march to the sea, or the battle for Hue. The US is fine with inflicting huge casualties, and will even suffer them willingly when the ardor of war has infused the population.]
deeviant 3y ago
I don't think your statement is accurate. The Iraqi army did not just "melt away deciding not to fight", they literally had no capability to fight and the times they did they got a obliterated in incredibly one sided battles. Trying to then to move focus on Fallujah, an urban pacification effort while talking about national-state-level war doesn't sound right to me either.

alephnerd 3y ago

It depends on the kind of fighting. If it's a conflict between the US and large regional powers (eg. Russia, China, India, UK, etc) assuming combatant morale holds it would be a bloodbath on both sides. Most regional powers now have the ability to manufacture weapons systems and train soldiers up to par with the where the U.S. was in the 1990s and 2000s now, which means our relative power is much less than in the 1990s or 2000s, when the only near peer was Russia. On the plus side, we are lucky a number of our allies have stronger power projection capabilities now (eg. SK modernization, Japan'a rearmament, Türkiye's military modernization, Poland's modernization, etc). That said, the Ukraine-Russia War does highlight how bloody a war between near peers can be.

ahoka 3y ago
I generally agree with you, but Russia can’t even manufacture weapons up to par with SU in 1980s.
- greedo 3y ago
  They can't manufacture them in quantity, but qualitatively they have surpassed 80's era weaponry. From ICBMs to cruise missiles and SAMs, they are a step above what they had before. Tanks are improved as well. The Su-57 appears to be a competently designed 5th gen aircraft, and Russian helicopters are logical progressions of USSR designs. What Russia can't do is afford any of this. Forget the sanctions, their economy is small, and not willing to under go the hardships of the communist era. So they've been forced to use older gear, and their newer gear has been crushed in combat. And don't forget that most militaries have old gear. B-52, B-1, B-2, etc are old old airframes. M1 is an old tank design (though it has been upgraded heavily). Bradleys are an old ICV design, again upgraded heavily. But the US still uses M113 from the 70s in some units, the Blackhawk and Apache are from the 80s, and we have ships in the USN that are almost old enough to qualify as senior citizens.
  - dixie_land 3y ago
    Old does not necessarily mean obsolete, A-10 still beats F-35s by a large margin on the job it's assigned to do, and cheaper
    - greedo 3y ago
      This is ridiculous. The A-10 was designed to fight the Soviets in Germany. And like the AH-1 Cobras, it was expected to have a short life span fighting anywhere near Soviet air defenses. Do you know what A-10s have done for the majority of their missions in the last decade? Flown high with JDAMS and loitered, waiting for a call. The gun is all sexy, but just not used enough. And the A-10 would be crushed over a battlefield like Ukraine. Hell, even the B-1 was used for CAS missions in Afghan because it could get their fast, and had better loiter time than most other aircraft. Of course the wisdom of using $300M+ bombers in this manner is questionable. My point wasn't that old is bad, but that all militaries use old gear. The new gear is often enhancements to old gear.
      - dredmorbius 3y ago
        OP might better have read "the A-10 exceeds the F-35 at its assigned mission", that is, the A-10 is the more capable aircraft for close-air support, where air superiority has been achieved. The F-35 likely exceeds the Warthog in other aspects, however.
  - selimthegrim 3y ago
    How's that T-14 assembly line coming along? Or the T-90 for that matter? Have they shown any ability to make SU-57s at scale?
    - greedo 3y ago
      Two things are affecting their production capacity; sanctions and $$. Even before they invaded Ukraine in 2014, they had limited funds for anything. Their economy is just too small to support their goals. Most of their design bureaus depended on foreign sales to stay alive. The only military branch that receives consistent funding is their nuclear systems. And then when you combine the impact of sanctions, it becomes much more challenging. Most of their precision machinery is imported from Europe, and as spare parts start to be consumed, this will impact their production rates as well.

idontwantthis 3y ago

The more relevant example is Iraq 1991. In a standup fight, the 4th largest army in the world was obliterated and no one in America would know if they didn’t read the newspaper.

greedo 3y ago

"My opinion is that US is up for rude awakening on ineffectiveness of US army when/if real fighting starts." Possibly. Though units that fought in both Afghanistan and Iraq during those time periods would argue with you about the fighting. What can be said definitively is that the US largely fought in small unit actions/light infantry compared to the Fulda Gap style battles foretold in Tom Clancy novels. The US military is huge though, and has incredible resources it can bring to bear in a conflict. Logistically, the US is unmatched. It has the reach of an empire and can bring force to most regions in a matter of a few hours. Its deployed military technology is still much superior than any potential opponents despite their best efforts. Would losses be huge? Any peer conflict will have huge losses (even assuming the conflict doesn't break past the nuclear threshold). The war in Ukraine has resulted in roughly 500K casualties. Even a conflict over Taiwan, which would largely be a naval battle, might see high US casualties. [Note; Fallejuah took a long time because there wasn't unity of command; two separate battles, different organizations, and a desire to appear civilian-friendly. If the US was fighting to recapture Crimea, there would be no concern about appearing civilized. People need to remember Sherman's march to the sea, or the battle for Hue. The US is fine with inflicting huge casualties, and will even suffer them willingly when the ardor of war has infused the population.]

deeviant 3y ago

I don't think your statement is accurate. The Iraqi army did not just "melt away deciding not to fight", they literally had no capability to fight and the times they did they got a obliterated in incredibly one sided battles. Trying to then to move focus on Fallujah, an urban pacification effort while talking about national-state-level war doesn't sound right to me either.