Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine (/thread-23071.html)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 02-28-2024

(02-26-2024, 08:12 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(02-26-2024, 07:36 PM)GK3 Wrote:  Western Europe has a larger population than Russia and probably a much larger economic engine.  The Mark, Franc etc. are gone and we have had the Euro for some time. Unfortunately, getting the disparate members of "Western Europe" to think as a common country has yet to happen but I think it is getting closer.

Fair enough. FWIW, I think the opposite is happening. The economic benefits of the EU and the Euro have concentrated themselves in Germany and the Netherlands, with France kind of tagging along. Virtually everybody else believes (with good reason in most cases) that they were better off with their own currency. When your goods became noncompetitive, you devalued your currency. Now you can't do that, leaving you in a permanent state of financial imbalance and dependence on loans (that you can't pay). The argument has been made that the Deutschmark was rising in value and that would have slowed down Germany's economic success, but the creation of the Euro created a currency that was the "average" of all the countries, including lots of countries that in fact had to lie to qualify for the Euro. That works great for Germany, because it keeps their currency weaker than it would be if they were on their own. Unfortunately it creates a currency that is too strong for most everybody else.

These more "have not" states also believe that "Brussels is taking over" and they don't like it much. Agricultural regulations that result in Italy importing oranges from Israel while at the same time destroying 20% of the domestic orange crop doesn't sit well. The Spanish like it because it protects their orange growers. Most of these "have not" nations would leave the Euro if they could, but they have borrowed so much Euro-denominated money they can't afford to leave either. Their credit would collapse. It certainly isn't a "boy, this is better" consensus, in fact the opposite. I run into this type of reasoning quite frequently. It might be that if all the EU nations actually believed they were "one people" that some of these issues could be worked out. They don't believe that, and IMO that isn't the trend.

Quote:The world has changed if you are a smaller country, you need to be part of a larger entity if you want to survive when the balloon goes up.

That has always been true. It is one of the reason there were so many wars. The larger countries would invade the smaller ones, so the smaller (or just weaker) ones had to form alliances to survive. If anything, NATO and "respect for the rule of law" has reduced this effect. That is one reason that Ukraine is such a critical issue. If Putin gets away with this, it is back to the "bad old days".

Quote:I believe that as time goes on, Western Europe will become more of a country with states like France, Germany, the UK etc.  A 100 years ago the world was a different place.

You may be correct. There are lots of bureaucrats in Brussels that claim this will be the case. They also often behave as if it is the case, which, since it is not (yet perhaps) the case creates lots of friction.

Quote:Time has shown that relying on the USA could be a mistake.

Up until very recently, that hasn't been an issue. The US has provided a "stable reference" to Europe for a long time. If it chooses to no longer do that, IMO Europe is in big trouble. We got away with it because we were clearly the "first among equals" and we were an "outsider" who at least in theory had no European ax to grind. I don't see any European nation that can step in and be the "adult". Anybody who tries will be considered as aggressive and somebody to fear. I hope we don't get to find out.

I think that the "stable reference" thing is what is causing Europe, no longer just Western Europe, to up its defense spending. The underlying issue is how much can they count on us to bail them out, probably not so much now except maybe for airpower. Back in the day when as a very young Officer I arrived in Germany in the early 1960's, we had 3 infantry divisions and 2 armored divisions in Western Europe.  Now what do we have?

We are still attempting project global power, in the Middle East, Asia and Europe.  Unfortunately it is mostly Air and Sea Power. I think the various governments of the many countries making up what I call Europe today, everything West of the Baltic States Poland, Romania line, get that and understand that they will have to do most of the dirty work on the ground if Putin decides to go West. So they either have to up their defense spending or hope somehow Russia assumes a different persona. 
Geopolitically, the pressure on us to defend our allies in the Middle East and Asia and Europe all at the same time is I think considerable, and in response the Army is downsizing. We can't meet out recruiting goals.  Germany is having problems with its recruiting goals.  Are Putin, China or North Korea having that same problem?  If you run a dictatorship, or what is one in reality, you can solve the "recruitment" problem fairly easily.
It is no longer 1938 or 1939 where your enemies are thousands of miles of water away with no quick way to get there. 
If we do not stop Putin from taking over the Ukraine, we are just kicking the can down road to the next generation and it will be worse for them.


Up until very recently, that hasn't been an issue. The US has provided a "stable reference" to Europe for a long time. If it chooses to no longer do that, IMO Europe is in big trouble. We got away with it because we were clearly the "first among equals" and we were an "outsider" who at least in theory had no European ax to grind. I don't see any European nation that can step in and be the "adult". Anybody who tries will be considered as aggressive and somebody to fear. I hope we don't get to find out.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Treefence - 02-28-2024

Question for anyone in the thread:  I keep seeing people talk about 4.2 billion in unused presidential draw down Authority.  I'm assuming this goes back to an audit done about a year ago that found the accounting was off, and overstated the amount the president had authorized.  With the long pause in aid, I've now seen a rumor that Biden will use this 4.2 billion now.  Is this legit?  I always assumed that the 4.2 billion was a fake number, if Biden thought he could use it, I assume he would've.  Maybe this is a grey area, and he didn't want to use this amount for fears that he'd be attacked for overstepping his authority, but maybe with the holdup in the house with new aid, he's changed his tune?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 02-28-2024

Do remember how old many of us are.  Lehrer's performance was closer in time to the Maji Maji Rebellion than to today.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 02-29-2024

(02-28-2024, 08:10 AM)GK3 Wrote:  I think that the "stable reference" thing is what is causing Europe, no longer just Western Europe, to up its defense spending. The underlying issue is how much can they count on us to bail them out, probably not so much now except maybe for airpower. Back in the day when as a very young Officer I arrived in Germany in the early 1960's, we had 3 infantry divisions and 2 armored divisions in Western Europe.  Now what do we have?

First of all, I think this is a great post and very relevant to the US situation in Europe/NATO today. My attempt to literally answer the question revealed (unsurprisingly) that a "straight answer" is difficult to find.  Depending on the "source", I can get numbers of "US military" in Europe. The numbers for that vary between 50,000 and 100,000. However, this counts USAF, USMC, and Navy units that "support" them, like carrier battle groups. These numbers are therefore not very useful. Here is an example
https://www.statista.com/statistics/222920/deployment-of-us-troops-in-selected-world-regions/
Another article says we have 100,000 troops in Europe, implying they are "army".
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2022/12/30/new-in-2023-us-troops-in-europe-to-continue-deployments-training/
If true, that would be around 6 "division equivalents".
https://usafacts.org/articles/where-are-us-military-members-stationed-and-why/
This article states that the US has 35,188 "troops" permanently stationed in Germany on "permanent" US bases. That includes USAF and undoubtedly tons of logistics troops. The "combat power" of this grouping is ?

Expanding "western" Europe to include Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria the best answer I can come up with is about 2 division equivalents. Answering the question is confounded by the move to "Brigade Combat Teams'. What we seem to be doing in Europe is deploying single Brigade Combat Teams and rotating them frequently. This reduces the length of time the troops are away from home. These brigades are commanded by headquarters that also rotate. Each headquarters seems to be commanding 2 brigades, not the "normal" 3, and it is unclear (to me at least) how supporting elements such as artillery are provided. Note that the headquarters commanding the two brigades may not be from the same "arm" as the brigade they command, and that the brigades themselves may be "heterogeneous" in type.

Some historical articles that cover NATO in the past I found were interesting.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/notes/2007/N2859.pdf
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2009/R3209.pdf
These historical notes provide perspective on our current situation and for those of us that were around during these times maybe pushes some buttons :-).

I spent lots of time between 1974 and 1978 with various US and German units in Europe. I spent much more time with German units. During the 1970's the US Army in Europe was suffering from the post-Vietnam "morale crisis" and had lots of problems. I have lots of jokes the Germans would tell on that subject. By 1978 it was much better. This was of course after LBJ had reduced the number of divisions in Europe by 2.

Quote:We are still attempting project global power, in the Middle East, Asia and Europe.  Unfortunately it is mostly Air and Sea Power. I think the various governments of the many countries making up what I call Europe today, everything West of the Baltic States Poland, Romania line, get that and understand that they will have to do most of the dirty work on the ground if Putin decides to go West. So they either have to up their defense spending or hope somehow Russia assumes a different persona.

But in the end they all will rely on the US Nuclear deterrent to make sure Putin doesn't "go west". They have their own political and economic realities to deal with. At one time, the US, UK, and FRG were on the same page and prepared for a credible "conventional" deterrent. The other European nations "did what they could". Back in 1967 the UK AOTR contained over 53,000 troops permanently stationed in Europe. Today they have 0. In fairness, the Russian "threat" isn't the 2.1 million troops and 175 divisions of that era. Against that, the 5 US divisions in Germany doesn't look as formidable. The 5 US, 3 UK, and 12 FRG divisions weren't going to "win the war". They were a "blocking force" (if you are an optimist) or a tripwire (if you were a pessimist). FWIW in the early 80's, 2 ACR described themselves as a "tripwire that would eventually DIP".
Hopefully you are correct and the European nations will strengthen their ground forces. We are seeing a willingness to spend slightly more money. It is unclear there is a corresponding willingness to expand their forces.

Quote:
Geopolitically, the pressure on us to defend our allies in the Middle East and Asia and Europe all at the same time is I think considerable, and in response the Army is downsizing. We can't meet out recruiting goals.  Germany is having problems with its recruiting goals.

You are absolutely correct IMO. Many of us remember when the US was committed to having a military force that could fight two full-scale wars and one counter-insurgency simultaneously. That then dropped to one war and one counter-insurgency. Now it is unclear we can even fight one war. IMO the only way any of these nations (US, Germany, UK, etc.) can maintain an adequate "standing army" is to re-institute conscription. We don't have nearly enough money to attract sufficient troops. Being a soldier isn't easy and the deployment tempo with our current military size just grinds down the force. A bigger force can't be bought. Of course, the probability of conscription being re-instituted in any of these countries is zero, Putin or no Putin. I find it humorous (in a perverse way)  when the US Army claims the latest "reorganization" improves combat power when it is obviously just trying to cover the shortfall.

Quote:Are Putin, China or North Korea having that same problem?  If you run a dictatorship, or what is one in reality, you can solve the "recruitment" problem fairly easily.

Up to a point, forced mass conscription can indeed provide all the troops you want. You do take a motivation/professionalism hit, but enough quantity can be used to overcome that.

Quote:It is no longer 1938 or 1939 where your enemies are thousands of miles of water away with no quick way to get there. 
If we do not stop Putin from taking over the Ukraine, we are just kicking the can down road to the next generation and it will be worse for them.

Absolutely, totally correct. Unfortunately it may not even be a generational delay. Putin is obviously in a hurry. Failure in Ukraine does however have serious adverse consequences for NATO and the world.

IMO the US forces "permanently" stationed in Europe always had two missions. One, the most obvious one, was to deter the Russians from "going west". Failing that, the US forces (along with the rest of NATO active forces) were expected at a minimum to delay the Russians until reinforcements (mostly from the US) arrived. The second, and even more important (but unstated for obvious reasons) was to provide a force that would ensure the US would do what was necessary to defend Europe. The willingness to lose up to 75,000 troops (more or less) was our "bona fides" that we were "all in". That enabled our credibility to be the "stable reference" because we couldn't sudenly just "opt out". This "statement" was also designed to let Russia know that we were serious and convince them there was no path to victory. The US troops were a "hostage force".

Today, the US has many "hostage forces" deployed around the world. The US force (28,000) in Korea is certainly that. It certainly can't stop (or even slow down) the 1.3 million strong North Korean army. It does demonstrate and ensure that if North Korea attacks, we will be "all in". IMO the us can maintain a  "stable reference" for NATO and Europe with less than 5 divisions worth of combat power "permanently" present. The questions are 1) how many troops are a necessary minimum for a "hostage force" and 2) how many troops are necessary to have enough military power to "matter". Right now, I think we are "OK", but barely. It mostly depends on what the other NATO nations think. I find it interesting that Romania repeatedly badgered the US until we sent a relatively small force to Romania "permanently". Our hostage force in place, Romania was fine with that.
https://www.army.mil/article/265582/us_army_brigades_from_the_101st_screaming_eagles_transfer_authority_in_romania

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 02-29-2024

https://www.yahoo.com/news/senators-warily-allow-f-16-232320965.html

As expected, the Senate did not act to block the F-16 sale. The resolution to do so was soundly defeated, coming just hours after Türkiye delivered their confirmation of Sweden's NATO membership. It was an acknowledged "quid pro quo", but it got done. It did give some Senators a forum to say what they didn't like about Türkiye's actions I guess.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 03-01-2024

this is in reply to Goose's reply

Thank you for a very interesting and thought provoking series of comments.
I found this one list of US Army Forces now assigned to Europe and Africa.  https://www.europeafrica.army.mil/Units/
Not a lot of combat power in that list.  A couple of brigades not much else.  But they are as you describe them useful "Hostage Forces". Do you know if we ever fully replaced the brobdingnagian hardware drawdowns that took place in the First Gulf War?  If we do not have adequate hardware to be linked up to units being flown in during an emergency, we may be worse off than i thought.
I know that in 2017 four multinational Battle Groups were created and stationed in the three Baltic States and Poland and with the invasion of Ukraine NATO agreed to form four more in Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Hungary.  Do all those exists and are they full manned?  How big is a Battle Group in todays world?  The info I can find says that the BG in Estonia is largest and has 1,650 soldiers.  A true Hostage Force and hardly a bump in the road for a Russian Armored division.  A Russian Tank Division is supposed to have around 12 to 14 thousand men, but my guess is they are nowhere near full strength.
Hopefully, Losses in Ukraine, internal politics, and other issues will lead Putin to avoid going West. But if he thinks he can get away with it, who knows.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 03-01-2024

(03-01-2024, 04:50 AM)GK3 Wrote:  this is in reply to Goose's reply

Thank you for a very interesting and thought provoking series of comments.
I found this one list of US Army Forces now assigned to Europe and Africa.  https://www.europeafrica.army.mil/Units/
Not a lot of combat power in that list.  A couple of brigades not much else.  But they are as you describe them useful "Hostage Forces".

Yes, I saw that one too. Frankly I couldn't figure out what it was telling me. There are units that are known to be (at least partially) in Europe and are not referenced. Who knows what is "real"? At least up through the 90s we pretty much who was where. No more apparently. 

Quote:Do you know if we ever fully replaced the of immense proportions hardware drawdowns that took place in the First Gulf War?  If we do not have adequate hardware to be linked up to units being flown in during an emergency, we may be worse off than i thought.

We did not. There are some mitigating factors. Our Army is about 63% the size it was in 1990. Lots of equipment could be abandoned without causing immediate problems because we have nobody to use it anyway. Obviously if we need to expand our Army it will be a problem (duh). It is also true that new types of hardware has been used to replace previous versions. Strykers instead of Bradleys is an example. The appropriateness of such changes and the effects on combat power is in general unspecified and unclear IMO. There are still stocks of hardware at POMCUS sites in Europe to "marry up" with units flown into theater. However there hasn't been a REFORGER since 1993. How well all that would work in a pinch is IMO questionable at best. The Army has also been engaged in lots of "R & D" for "new, advanced concepts" that either failed or didn't lead to procurement. As a result I would say we have enough equipment for our Army and Reserves as presently constituted. Some of it is obsolete. We have some "extra" stocks of things that are not the "latest and greatest" with an unknown number of these that are "runners". We have an unknown (to me) quantity of pre-positioned gear around the world. I am pretty sure this pre-positioned stuff is probably useful but inadequate :-).

Quote:I know that in 2017 four multinational Battle Groups were created and stationed in the three Baltic States and Poland and with the invasion of Ukraine NATO agreed to form four more in Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Hungary.  Do all those exists and are they full manned?

I am pretty sure they all exist and their headquarters are fully manned. The size of the "Battle Groups" is whatever feels right and can be scraped together. I think the plan is to have a headquarters group than can support a lot more troops. These Battle Groups" could then in theory be significantly reinforced if God forbid they actually had to fight.  We also rotate the entire staffs regularly to create the ability to create more Battle Groups led by "experienced" staffs. As far as I can tell, most of these Battle Groups main task is training local forces in various ways. The exercises in Romania are certainly that.

Quote:How big is a Battle Group in todays world?  The info I can find says that the BG in Estonia is largest and has 1,650 soldiers.  A true Hostage Force and hardly a bump in the road for a Russian Armored division.  A Russian Tank Division is supposed to have around 12 to 14 thousand men, but my guess is they are nowhere near full strength.

Well, the good news is that the area of Estonia along the Russian border is forested and therefore crappy tank country :-). That said, if the Russian Air Force isn't sitting the war out, Estonia is indefensible anyway. Right next to LOTS of Russian airfields and plenty of Russian air defense. Anything that tries to move should be dead at least. The "battle Group" there is indeed (by design) a hostage force. That is one reason the very first thing the Baltics did was join NATO. They know they certainly would be overrun in short order if they didn't have NATO air and sea defense. With NATO support, they still lose but slower. They also wanted Russia to realize that they would end up fighting all along the NATO front, not just in the Baltics where Russia has a much better hand to play. A "Battle Group" is whatever the command says it is. Tactically it is pretty meaningless term. I think the plan is to "fill them out" if hostilities are imminent. Where the troops to do that will come from is the question.

A related question is what forces can the US quickly deploy to Europe? The US has 3 Airborne, 1 Armored Division (yes, exactly 1), 1 Calvary Division, 6  Infantry Divisions and 1 Mountain Division  on active duty. There are also a few independent "Brigades". Quite a few elements of the Airborne Divisions are currently rotating to postings in Europe. We are playing musical chairs with lots of different units at below divisional level.
https://www.army.mil/article/273127/army_announces_upcoming_unit_deployments
The Army definitely wants a "plug and play" situation where divisional boundaries really don't matter. The composition of the force will be what is necessary to do the job. The Brigade Tactical Group is a concept in vogue. A one point a BTG (not to be confused with a Battalion Tactical Group in Russian parlance) was supposed to be about half a division but I think that concept is out the door.  The problem is once we have deployed out one armored division and one cavalry division (as units or piecemeal) what remaining divisions can be classified as a "heavy" or "mechanized" infantry division and sent to Europe? Airborne divisions are fine but they aren't "heavy infantry". Besides, lots of their parts appear to be already in Europe.  It looks like the plan is to do things piecemeal and take units as necessary from the infantry divisions. Can that work?

Quote:Hopefully, Losses in Ukraine, internal politics, and other issues will lead Putin to avoid going West. But if he thinks he can get away with it, who knows.

With you there, but as we know "hope is not a strategy". Problem is, without more troops it kind of looks to me we are stuck rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. As you pointed out, with all our commitments throughout Asia and the Middle East we aren't even able to move around all the inadequate forces we have. If Putin and Xi get together to even threaten strategic objectives, what does the Army do?

---

TrumpCard - TrumpCard - 03-01-2024

This discussion is a little over my head but it raises an important point. The US clearly has limited troops. For that reason, and many others, the US does not want a direct conflict with Russia. In Ukraine right now, the US has an opportunity to equip a foreign military force that highly motivated to fight Russian troops. And it’s already been shown that this conflict, absent some significant escalation, is not going to lead to a direct war between Russia and the US. My conclusion is that we’re certifiably insane if we don’t fund and equip Ukraine’s military to the best of our ability.

---

RE: TrumpCard - Goose - 03-01-2024

(03-01-2024, 11:30 AM)TrumpCard Wrote:  This discussion is a little over my head but it raises an important point. The US clearly has limited troops. For that reason, and many others, the US does not want a direct conflict with Russia. In Ukraine right now, the US has an opportunity to equip a foreign military force that highly motivated to fight Russian troops. And it’s already been shown that this conflict, absent some significant escalation, is not going to lead to a direct war between Russia and the US. My conclusion is that we’re certifiably insane if we don’t fund and equip Ukraine’s military to the best of our ability.

Exactly so. We have a proxy force that has already provided over 31K souls (at a minimum) in the fight against Russia. They will fight. If they can take Crimea, Russia is going to be forced to decide whether they want a "total war" (which Putin probably can't politically survive) or to give up. That is the desired outcome. We need to spend the money to facilitate it. Not doing so is insane.

---

RE: TrumpCard - GK3 - 03-01-2024

(03-01-2024, 11:48 AM)Goose Wrote:  

(03-01-2024, 11:30 AM)TrumpCard Wrote:  This discussion is a little over my head but it raises an important point. The US clearly has limited troops. For that reason, and many others, the US does not want a direct conflict with Russia. In Ukraine right now, the US has an opportunity to equip a foreign military force that highly motivated to fight Russian troops. And it’s already been shown that this conflict, absent some significant escalation, is not going to lead to a direct war between Russia and the US. My conclusion is that we’re certifiably insane if we don’t fund and equip Ukraine’s military to the best of our ability.

Exactly so. We have a proxy force that has already provided over 31K souls (at a minimum) in the fight against Russia. They will fight. If they can take Crimea, Russia is going to be forced to decide whether they want a "total war" (which Putin probably can't politically survive) or to give up. That is the desired outcome. We need to spend the money to facilitate it. Not doing so is insane.

Reading all that is depressing.  One armored division?? Really?  If our adversaries decide to play hardball and work together, we will sink or swim on airpower and sea power and the threat of nuclear retaliation. It almost feels what it must have been like in the 1930's and the Isolationist movement. Back then we might well have survived by sitting on our little island surrounded by ocean and letting the rest of the world go to hell in a handbasket.  I don't think that has a prayer of working in today. A country has to have a Will to find a Way.  I am not sure we have that Will. It may take a Russian advance into Western Europe to create that Will.  Unfortunately, you don't instantly create well trained combat forces out of thin air.  Fortunately, we probably do have a few National Guard units who can fight, after that, not so much. If I was a NATO country I would start getting a little worried.  I need a drink.

---

RE: TrumpCard - Goose - 03-01-2024

(03-01-2024, 12:26 PM)GK3 Wrote:  Reading all that is depressing.  One armored division?? Really?  If our adversaries decide to play hardball and work together, we will sink or swim on airpower and sea power and the threat of nuclear retaliation. It almost feels what it must have been like in the 1930's and the Isolationist movement. Back then we might well have survived by sitting on our little island surrounded by ocean and letting the rest of the world go to hell in a handbasket.  I don't think that has a prayer of working in today.

It certainly won't work today. It wouldn't have worked in 1938 either. While the US was getting out of the depression, we weren't there yet. Without European commerce our economy would have nosedived again. We were at that point an exporting nation. Without customers, we were in a world of hurt. Getting "back to normal" would have been impossible.

Quote:A country has to have a Will to find a Way.  I am not sure we have that Will. It may take a Russian advance into Western Europe to create that Will.  Unfortunately, you don't instantly create well trained combat forces out of thin air.

You certainly can't create well trained (and well lead) combat forces out of thin air, as Ukraine has demonstrated. It literally takes at least a year to fully train a combat soldier. Yes, you can get by with much less, but only if the unit the lesser trained solder is joining has a lot of highly trained ones to help him (and hopefully keep him alive).   We certainly lack the Will at present. Our national leadership isn't even willing to talk about it. There is no problem, right? Our military leaders keep saying "Yes Sir, Yes Sir, 3 Bags Full Sir." as they reorganize yet again to "do more with less" as they lower standards and still can't meet their recruiting requirements. At least the leaders of the Luftwaffe had the courage to resign in response to irresponsible leadership by the politicians. Not that it helped.

Quote:Fortunately, we probably do have a few National Guard units who can fight, after that, not so much.

We have 8 ARNG Infantry divisions. Some of them have many soldiers who have experienced some "combat". Some of the units are undoubtedly "ready to go" today. Some units have been activated to fill "gaps" in the active forces. These current ARNG divisions are undoubtedly better than the ones called up for WW II but they are probably without exception not "ready to fight tonight" as a division. Parts are "ready", the whole is not.
After these are "used up", they call you and me.

Quote: If I was a NATO country I would start getting a little worried.  I need a drink.

We are a NATO country and I am worried. I know I do. :-).

---

RE: TrumpCard - GK3 - 03-01-2024

(03-01-2024, 01:19 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(03-01-2024, 12:26 PM)GK3 Wrote:  Reading all that is depressing.  One armored division?? Really?  If our adversaries decide to play hardball and work together, we will sink or swim on airpower and sea power and the threat of nuclear retaliation. It almost feels what it must have been like in the 1930's and the Isolationist movement. Back then we might well have survived by sitting on our little island surrounded by ocean and letting the rest of the world go to hell in a handbasket.  I don't think that has a prayer of working in today.

It certainly won't work today. It wouldn't have worked in 1938 either. While the US was getting out of the depression, we weren't there yet. Without European commerce our economy would have nosedived again. We were at that point an exporting nation. Without customers, we were in a world of hurt. Getting "back to normal" would have been impossible.

Quote:A country has to have a Will to find a Way.  I am not sure we have that Will. It may take a Russian advance into Western Europe to create that Will.  Unfortunately, you don't instantly create well trained combat forces out of thin air.

You certainly can't create well trained (and well lead) combat forces out of thin air, as Ukraine has demonstrated. It literally takes at least a year to fully train a combat soldier. Yes, you can get by with much less, but only if the unit the lesser trained solder is joining has a lot of highly trained ones to help him (and hopefully keep him alive).   We certainly lack the Will at present. Our national leadership isn't even willing to talk about it. There is no problem, right? Our military leaders keep saying "Yes Sir, Yes Sir, 3 Bags Full Sir." as they reorganize yet again to "do more with less" as they lower standards and still can't meet their recruiting requirements. At least the leaders of the Luftwaffe had the courage to resign in response to irresponsible leadership by the politicians. Not that it helped.

Quote:Fortunately, we probably do have a few National Guard units who can fight, after that, not so much.

We have 8 ARNG Infantry divisions. Some of them have many soldiers who have experienced some "combat". Some of the units are undoubtedly "ready to go" today. Some units have been activated to fill "gaps" in the active forces. These current ARNG divisions are undoubtedly better than the ones called up for WW II but they are probably without exception not "ready to fight tonight" as a division. Parts are "ready", the whole is not.
After these are "used up", they call you and me.

Quote: If I was a NATO country I would start getting a little worried.  I need a drink.

We are a NATO country and I am worried. I know I do. :-).

Leadership, Leadership, Leadership! It is all about leadership.
The junior officers from the First Gulf War are probably mostly retired or long gone from the service. Those from the Second are probably still around if they were any good.  Just because you pin a pair of railroad tracks on a man's shoulders doesn't make him a leader, same with the chevrons of an NCO.  Back in my day, way too many men died because the man in charge was not a leader and had no clue what he was doing. Of course 90 day wonders have been fed into the meat grinder far too many times and not just in Viet Nam.  JFK's adage, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your Country" still rings true for me. If the world continues on its current path we are going to have to make some hard decisions as a country regarding the draft and national service.

---

RE: TrumpCard - Mick - 03-01-2024

(03-01-2024, 01:19 PM)Goose Wrote:  Our military leaders keep saying "Yes Sir, Yes Sir, 3 Bags Full Sir." as they reorganize yet again to "do more with less" as they lower standards and still can't meet their recruiting requirements. At least the leaders of the Luftwaffe had the courage to resign in response to irresponsible leadership by the politicians. Not that it helped.

The U. S. Army has figured out a way to combat the massive recruiting shortfall. Not by paying soldiers more...but by cutting positions and reducing their mission:
24,000 US Army positions cut amid recruitment woes

U. S. Army structural transformation white paper here: army-white-paper-army-force-structure-transformation.pdf

Navy usually hits their recruiting goals. They missed by about 7,500 this year: Inside the Navy’s quest to fix its recruiting crisis (navytimes.com). The good news is that Navy's retention was better than expected: Amid recruiting crisis, the Navy surpassed retention goals for FY23 (navytimes.com)

Air Force missed their recruiting goals by about 10% (2,700 airmen), first miss in a quarter of a century. Entire Air Force to miss recruiting goal, the first failure since 1999 (airforcetimes.com)

---

RE: TrumpCard - GK3 - 03-01-2024

(03-01-2024, 03:21 PM)Mick Wrote:  

(03-01-2024, 01:19 PM)Goose Wrote:  Our military leaders keep saying "Yes Sir, Yes Sir, 3 Bags Full Sir." as they reorganize yet again to "do more with less" as they lower standards and still can't meet their recruiting requirements. At least the leaders of the Luftwaffe had the courage to resign in response to irresponsible leadership by the politicians. Not that it helped.

The U. S. Army has figured out a way to combat the massive recruiting shortfall. Not by paying soldiers more...but by cutting positions and reducing their mission:
24,000 US Army positions cut amid recruitment woes

U. S. Army structural transformation white paper here: army-white-paper-army-force-structure-transformation.pdf

Navy usually hits their recruiting goals. They missed by about 7,500 this year: Inside the Navy’s quest to fix its recruiting crisis (navytimes.com). The good news is that Navy's retention was better than expected: Amid recruiting crisis, the Navy surpassed retention goals for FY23 (navytimes.com)

Air Force missed their recruiting goals by about 10% (2,700 airmen), first miss in a quarter of a century. Entire Air Force to miss recruiting goal, the first failure since 1999 (airforcetimes.com)

Very cogent figures.  If the curve continues in this manner push will come to shove far sooner that the people at the top would like.

---

RE: TrumpCard - Goose - 03-01-2024

(03-01-2024, 03:21 PM)Mick Wrote:  

(03-01-2024, 01:19 PM)Goose Wrote:  Our military leaders keep saying "Yes Sir, Yes Sir, 3 Bags Full Sir." as they reorganize yet again to "do more with less" as they lower standards and still can't meet their recruiting requirements. At least the leaders of the Luftwaffe had the courage to resign in response to irresponsible leadership by the politicians. Not that it helped.

The U. S. Army has figured out a way to combat the massive recruiting shortfall. Not by paying soldiers more...but by cutting positions and reducing their mission:
24,000 US Army positions cut amid recruitment woes

U. S. Army structural transformation white paper here: army-white-paper-army-force-structure-transformation.pdf

Yes, this is an example of trying to spin having fewer troops as a "good thing". They claim it allows them to bring in "new capabilities". Why does fewer troops do that? It saves on paying them. Did it never occur to them that having both is the right answer, not either-or. Yes, you can make the best of a bad situation but claiming "all is well" is a) false, and b) almost ensures nobody will see a need to fix the problem (because there is no problem). It is an abdication of leadership. The military is responsible to civilian control, but the military leaders are expected to also be professional. They should never defend a policy they think is misguided, no matter what their civilian bosses say. Make them fire you if they don't like your opinion. You have a professional obligation both to the nation and to the troops. Honor it.

---

RE: TrumpCard - GK3 - 03-01-2024

(03-01-2024, 06:52 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(03-01-2024, 03:21 PM)Mick Wrote:  

(03-01-2024, 01:19 PM)Goose Wrote:  Our military leaders keep saying "Yes Sir, Yes Sir, 3 Bags Full Sir." as they reorganize yet again to "do more with less" as they lower standards and still can't meet their recruiting requirements. At least the leaders of the Luftwaffe had the courage to resign in response to irresponsible leadership by the politicians. Not that it helped.

The U. S. Army has figured out a way to combat the massive recruiting shortfall. Not by paying soldiers more...but by cutting positions and reducing their mission:
24,000 US Army positions cut amid recruitment woes

U. S. Army structural transformation white paper here: army-white-paper-army-force-structure-transformation.pdf

Yes, this is an example of trying to spin having fewer troops as a "good thing". They claim it allows them to bring in "new capabilities". Why does fewer troops do that? It saves on paying them. Did it never occur to them that having both is the right answer, not either-or. Yes, you can make the best of a bad situation but claiming "all is well" is a) false, and b) almost ensures nobody will see a need to fix the problem (because there is no problem). It is an abdication of leadership. The military is responsible to civilian control, but the military leaders are expected to also be professional. They should never defend a policy they think is misguided, no matter what their civilian bosses say. Make them fire you if they don't like your opinion. You have a professional obligation both to the nation and to the troops. Honor it.

Amen, very well said. I could probably comment on this subject at great length, but I could not define the problem any better than your have.
Thank you

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 03-04-2024

Impressive video of Ukraine hitting another Russian Black Sea ship, the Sergei Kotov, with a USV in the Crimean port of Feodosia.

https://x.com/GirkinGirkin/status/1764897226294202778?s=20

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 03-06-2024

An interesting article, which if true and accurate, illustrates our propensity to assume that the easy solution will always trump the hard one.
https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/2024/03/05/rearming-us-navy-ships-at-sea-is-no-longer-an-option-but-a-necessity/

Hard for me to think that this system was designed with no real thought put into the question of what happens if we can't resupply in port? What use is a guided missile ship if it has no missiles. So now, years after the system was designed, we are trying to figure out how to resupply at sea?
Hard to fathom.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 03-06-2024

The various components of the budget are moving slower than anyone would like, but this article does support the premise that the House will take up a supplemental with aid for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan after Congress passes a budget.  As frustrating as the delay has been, and as misguided as I consider the opposition to the aid supplemental, I do think this timeline is a practical one given the risk of a motion to vacate the speakership in the event the aid supplemental were to come to the floor first.  I just hope the Ukrainians don't lose a lot more land or human lives because of the delay.  And I hope that whatever bill makes it to the House floor is reasonably sensible. 

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/03/politics/mike-johnson-ukraine-funding/index.html

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 03-06-2024

(03-06-2024, 08:10 AM)GK3 Wrote:  An interesting article, which if true and accurate, illustrates our propensity to assume that the easy solution will always trump the hard one.
https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/2024/03/05/rearming-us-navy-ships-at-sea-is-no-longer-an-option-but-a-necessity/

Hard for me to think that this system was designed with no real thought put into the question of what happens if we can't resupply in port? What use is a guided missile ship if it has no missiles. So now, years after the system was designed, we are trying to figure out how to resupply at sea?
Hard to fathom.

To be fair, LOTS of thought has been put into the question of what happens if we can't resupply in port. This supply question has always existed for ships at sea and still will exist even when the ability to reload missiles at sea is perfected. It is a question of degree. The answer in the past was two-fold.

First, until very recently there has been no ability to target US carrier task forces on the open sea. The carriers would bomb the heck out of the enemy and attrit their ability to launch counter air strikes. The CAP would shoot down any missile launching aircraft that threatened the force at ranges that were "safe". If that failed, the escorts would use their SAMs to destroy any cruise missiles and aircraft that managed to get through. The escorting destroyers were envisioned as defensive weapons, not really part of the "strike". It must be remembered that even today it is very difficult to even FIND a carrier task force to attack it. The ocean is large. Satellites can tell you where the carrier was, not where it is. As a result, the missile load-out was reasonably assumed to last for months, not weeks. There was also no "blue water" force that could  really effectively overwhelm our defenses. The Soviet Union had a navy that basically was designed to have a "punchers chance". It couldn't be ignored, but it was never large enough or capable enough to go "toe-to-toe" with the USN. The USN also had the option of choosing where and when it would attack the Soviet Union. The battlespace was very large.

Second, and probably more importantly to the reload problem, the USN had a +/- 600 ship force. It expected to regularly rotate ships in the escort force. The DDG would be relieved and go back to a somewhat nearby port (Japan, the PI, maybe Australia if you were lucky), get some rest, fix/replace stuff that broke, and come back to the fight when ready. That is always how it was done in the past. This is partly because smaller ships do require periodic maintenance to remain effective. They can refuel at sea from the carrier or a tanker. They can re-provision that way too. However, they can't stay at sea for months on end and remain effective. That is one reason why the US closed in on Japan by capturing many islands. We  wanted ports closer to the target so we could "short cycle" ship repairs/resupply.

What has changed is three things. First, the existence and frequent (prodigious actually) use of TLAMs instead of aircraft has placed what was the "escort force" directly in the "strike" role. They didn't use to be. These strike missiles take up space in the VLS that otherwise be reserved for SAMs and some surface-to-surface anti-shipping missiles. We use a lot of them because we don't want to risk aircraft in heavily defended airspace. This is the main problem. Second, the PLAN has developed the capability to attack US carriers with long range ballistic missiles. This isn't as easy as it sounds because getting an accurate firing solution is still very problematic. However, the carrier can't use it's own aircraft to counter these missiles. They must rely, in the end, on the escort's ABM weapons. There better be enough of them, because the PLAN can launch LOTS of ballistic missiles.

Second, we no longer have a +/- 600 ship navy. Instead, we have +/- 275. The article makes the (dubious IMO) claim that reloading at sea provides the equivalent of 18 more DDGs. In 1990, we had the 18 more DDGs, so we didn't care. The claim is IMO dubious because it omits the requirement to provide a ship to carry the replacement missiles and a safe place in the open sea to do the reload. It can't take place in an area where ballistic missile attack is possible because the UNREP ship would be in danger just getting there. We don't have any "spare" UNREP ships to just do this without creating other, worse problems. The UNREP carry only limited non-fuel supplies. We are even shorter of this capability than we are of DDGs. The example of the current Red Sea operation points out the Carney has been there for four months and didn't run out of missiles. Granted, the Houthi are not exactly China. This is a very long time for a ship of this type to be on "detached service", and probably a port call is going to be required pretty soon. Anyway, this isn't a "typical situation". If Carney needed a missile reload, Jeddah is only about 700 nm away (not 2000 nm, that is Souda Bay/Qatar distance).  I am sure they could reload there if it was absolutely necessary. Not a great liberty port though :-).

Third, what the USN is really worried about is defending Taiwan (or at least making the PLAN think it can and will). That geometry requires the USN to stay relatively close to what it is defending. It is not at all like attacking China would be. It is also in an area where mainland China is lots closer to the objective than any US friendly ports. This proximity would allow China to concentrate their forces to direct a prodigious number of missiles (all types) and aircraft against the US fleet. The ocean is lots smaller if you are tied to Taiwan by a range circle of your own weapons. It is still "big", but not near as big. The USN is going to need lots of combat power just to defend itself. The escorts may be required to use up lots of ordinance very rapidly. Not having to withdraw a large distance to re-arm is in this case very important. However, it must be remembered doing so isn't "free". You can't re-arm in an area where the UNREP ship could be easily sunk getting there. You may also have to escort the UNREP ship, which takes a DDG/Frigate with necessary weapons stocks. The capability to do this is valuable, but not nearly as valuable as it first appears. It is always going to be "slow" and constrain the movements of the vessels involved (as any UNREP does).

---