Chilling World War III 'wargames' show US forces crushed by Russia and China
Scary World War III ‘wargames’ show U.S. forces crushed by Russia and China in certain hot spots around the globe.
www.foxnews.com
The new war games ain't going well
- Thread starter Gunfighter14e2
- Start date
www.foxnews.com
It is an interesting conclusion... but the basis is around limited warfare and a limited number of hotspots.
Right now, I think we would have a hard time in a full force-on-force engagement in certain situations. But the Russkies and Chicoms would have a hard time in others.
Remember, we have a habit of losing our first engagements... We did in WW1... and at Savo Island and the Kasserine Pass. And in Korea before Inchon... There were screwups in Grenada... some immense FUBAR shit in Panama.... and a lot of losses before we knew there was a GWOT.
Ernie Pyle had a great quote that went something like "Americans think that just because we are American, we can whip our weight in wildcats every time we face an enemy." The reality is that we have a penchant for losing the first round.
Then we learn lessons as a military... Adapt faster than any nation on earth... and end up winning in full-up combat. Because we adapt well, have leadership taught from the slick-sleeve private up to the general. And have an industrial base and technology base none equals. But we have a nasty habit of taking the first round or two on the chin. Maybe it's because we are so wedded to the Marquis de Queensbury rules... and refuse to keep a pair of brass knuckles in our pockets at all times.
Where we do fail every time is trying to turn our armies into nation builders. Leave that to the State Department and the UN. The 82Nd Abn and the Big Red One are not trained to be a crossing guards or plumbers. They break anvils and unravel ball-bearings... and that's the way it should be. Leave the repairs to those trained to rebuild stuff. Don't turn paratroopers into beat cops and encounter-group leaders.
Well, what do I know....
Cheers,
Sirhr
Right now, I think we would have a hard time in a full force-on-force engagement in certain situations. But the Russkies and Chicoms would have a hard time in others.
Remember, we have a habit of losing our first engagements... We did in WW1... and at Savo Island and the Kasserine Pass. And in Korea before Inchon... There were screwups in Grenada... some immense FUBAR shit in Panama.... and a lot of losses before we knew there was a GWOT.
Ernie Pyle had a great quote that went something like "Americans think that just because we are American, we can whip our weight in wildcats every time we face an enemy." The reality is that we have a penchant for losing the first round.
Then we learn lessons as a military... Adapt faster than any nation on earth... and end up winning in full-up combat. Because we adapt well, have leadership taught from the slick-sleeve private up to the general. And have an industrial base and technology base none equals. But we have a nasty habit of taking the first round or two on the chin. Maybe it's because we are so wedded to the Marquis de Queensbury rules... and refuse to keep a pair of brass knuckles in our pockets at all times.
Where we do fail every time is trying to turn our armies into nation builders. Leave that to the State Department and the UN. The 82Nd Abn and the Big Red One are not trained to be a crossing guards or plumbers. They break anvils and unravel ball-bearings... and that's the way it should be. Leave the repairs to those trained to rebuild stuff. Don't turn paratroopers into beat cops and encounter-group leaders.
Well, what do I know....
Cheers,
Sirhr
Sun Tsu: Make your enemy think you are weak when you are strong and strong when you are weak.
Also great way to get the mil funding going.
Also great way to get the mil funding going.
100% pure FUD.
1. The premise of each wargame, while somewhat realistic of a possible conflict, is flawed (ie. US hold its own, part way around the world, in the enemy's backyard, with only the resources it has in the immediate AO or can muster in a finite period of time). Nothing is said about an extended conflict, "world war", or eventual victory - only a near-term reactionary defense. By RAND's measure, WWII was lost to Japan at Pearl Harbor.
2. Has RAND ever done a "wargame" that didn't result in "The US needs to spend MORE MONEY on defense or we'll lose?"
1. The premise of each wargame, while somewhat realistic of a possible conflict, is flawed (ie. US hold its own, part way around the world, in the enemy's backyard, with only the resources it has in the immediate AO or can muster in a finite period of time). Nothing is said about an extended conflict, "world war", or eventual victory - only a near-term reactionary defense. By RAND's measure, WWII was lost to Japan at Pearl Harbor.
2. Has RAND ever done a "wargame" that didn't result in "The US needs to spend MORE MONEY on defense or we'll lose?"
SirHR is correct. To which I'll add "the linked premise is based upon the U.S. helping out "some country" being invaded by the Soviets. Or helping out Taiwan being invaded by the Chinese.
They didn't even suggest anything regarding the premise of the U.S. being invaded. I'm sure that the story would have been considerably different, had that tangent been look upon.
Now, as a Canuckian, I can honestly say that I do believe it is now time to call The Newfie's! ;D
They didn't even suggest anything regarding the premise of the U.S. being invaded. I'm sure that the story would have been considerably different, had that tangent been look upon.
Now, as a Canuckian, I can honestly say that I do believe it is now time to call The Newfie's! ;D
Well when the strategy people have no idea what strategy is it's likely possible.
I'm basing that on the last 18 years when the strategy has been "Global War on Terror"
What's the metric to winning that?
I'm thinking GWOT was just for public consumption because we can't be so stupid as to have a never achievable strategy.
Looking more and more like the strategy was to feed the MIC, bleed the best of the military, foment domestic disruption to weaken sovereign resolve, consolidate the world political systems under a unified umbrella.
That's a definable, achievable strategy unlike GWOT.
Everything we have experienced over the last 19 years are just the tactics to get us to that umbrella government strategic goal.
I'm basing that on the last 18 years when the strategy has been "Global War on Terror"
What's the metric to winning that?
I'm thinking GWOT was just for public consumption because we can't be so stupid as to have a never achievable strategy.
Looking more and more like the strategy was to feed the MIC, bleed the best of the military, foment domestic disruption to weaken sovereign resolve, consolidate the world political systems under a unified umbrella.
That's a definable, achievable strategy unlike GWOT.
Everything we have experienced over the last 19 years are just the tactics to get us to that umbrella government strategic goal.
It was in Syria and it was Russian Contractors on a contract taken in by some kind of Friends of Vlad Commie Sous-chef turned Blackwater wannabe ersatz-Spetznaz owner. And one US SF A-team sent a few hundred of them into second-rate socialized medicine system and a bunch more into unmarked sandy graves in a biblical land.
Yeah. It went that way. 'Merika.. De Oppresso Liber. That happened. Yay!
Sirhr
We could never spool up the industrial machine like we did during WWII.
It would take years since we have no manufacturing base.
Second, there's a big difference in fighting a 3rd world country opposed to a more level playing field.
I guess there's a reason why someone has been complaining about NATO members not spending their fair share.
It would take years since we have no manufacturing base.
Second, there's a big difference in fighting a 3rd world country opposed to a more level playing field.
I guess there's a reason why someone has been complaining about NATO members not spending their fair share.
Them “bearded ones” are kinda mean when they get shot at and their hands aren’t tied...
In another scenario the US was also crushed by uncontrolled debt, unchecked government spending, a growing population of socioeconomic leaches and soy milk.
Meh, hands are usually in pockets...
Got a great story from Iraq.... which, of course, I heard secondhand. Bunch of 5th Group guys were in forward positions on July 22, 2003... on some snatchus-n-grabbus ops. All of a sudden, the place erupted.... AK fire and noise and indigenous personnel all antsy in their pantsy everywhere. But nothing inbound. All just random firing, everywhere, for no apparent reason.
After a few minutes, a call came over the 'net, which went something like "Hold tight.... word is that you long-hairs just got Uday and Kusay...." Which was about right. So everyone held tight and ops were cancelled until the following evening.
But, again, what do I know.
Cheers,
Sirhr
Yeah, I simply ment the ROE hand tie...
Those two kids were monsters, but leaving and letting ISIS in by mister O was kinda retarded.
More like they just call in the air support and sure, it's going to be a slaughter when one team has tons of air support gunships on call & the other doesn't.
What it just proved is (as usual), if things get a bit too "real" the air support will get called in for the win, so don't come to play unless you have a plan for your own air support and dealing with other people's air support.
Just by the headline, all it is, is someone out there wanting more funding for something we 'need' which also happens to cost a lot and is made by contractors with IDIQ contracts that do cost accounting in quarter decades.
Yea. You’re right. I still want whatever it is, whatever new technology, toy, weapon, bomb, fighter, arsenal ship,...whatever. I’d rather waste my money on expensive military toys than pay for a single able bodied layabout. It can be a boondoggle or whatever and it still does way more good than supporting people who ought to be supporting themselves, and keep all my fucking SS money. That will be the ruination of us all.
Nobody wants a “fair” fight...and let’s be honest, one substantial benefit the US has over its “peers” is nearly two decades of extensive CAS experience and integration.
Chair Force jokes aside, the ability to 1. achieve air superiority over enemy air, then 2. implement effective SEAD is vital to protecting troops in contact on the ground.
US kicks Ruskie ass in Syria they asses got WHOOPED!!
Delta, SF, Rangers, Marines, Air Force..... damn near everyone got a piece of the action on that night.
Read the first sentence that paragraph... that's a bad fucking day if your the bad guy.... They encountered T-Bone Trump's 'Murica.
From the article, "The outcome of the battle, and much of its mechanics, suggest that the Russian mercenaries and their Syrian allies were in the wrong part of the world to try a simple, massed assault on an American military position."
I call this an "OOOOOPS" on the Syrians and Ruskies.
Last edited:
I'm not going to get into vulnerabilities on an open forum, but I will say, this isn't about appropriations per se, yes, there will be appropriations, but it's not about getting funding, there really is an issue. One that has largely been ignored the past 15yrs as all the funding went into COIN/GWOT type solutions.
A peer adversary confrontation today is a very real concern, since most of our equipment and systems have been hacked/compromised via Chinese/Russian cybertheft.
There's a reason Trump is pushing for a return of manufacturing to the US, as well as pulling away from the brilliant (sarcasm) decision for government and academia to work jointly on R&D. Any new play toys the US has today are going to remain SAP (ala F-35) to prevent (as much as possible) the disclosure of capabilities and vulnerabilities.
Let's face it; the first indication we'll know we're at war is when everyone's cellphone quits working...and the war will be one or lost likely within the next 6 hours. Everything after that will likely just be running through the motions...
As Sirh says...but what do I know?
A peer adversary confrontation today is a very real concern, since most of our equipment and systems have been hacked/compromised via Chinese/Russian cybertheft.
There's a reason Trump is pushing for a return of manufacturing to the US, as well as pulling away from the brilliant (sarcasm) decision for government and academia to work jointly on R&D. Any new play toys the US has today are going to remain SAP (ala F-35) to prevent (as much as possible) the disclosure of capabilities and vulnerabilities.
Let's face it; the first indication we'll know we're at war is when everyone's cellphone quits working...and the war will be one or lost likely within the next 6 hours. Everything after that will likely just be running through the motions...
As Sirh says...but what do I know?
Hi,
The amount of money being funneled to COIN aircraft R&D on the international level has probably increased x5 in past 2 years.
Countries that seem to be 3rd world entities are even in development of lightweight, long loitering, medium payload COIN aircraft.
Sincerely,
Theis
The amount of money being funneled to COIN aircraft R&D on the international level has probably increased x5 in past 2 years.
Countries that seem to be 3rd world entities are even in development of lightweight, long loitering, medium payload COIN aircraft.
Sincerely,
Theis
Except at the very beginning IV when old Ben points out and notes that only Imperial Storm troopers can be that precise and accurate with fire.
Then for the rest of the movie, the storm troopers might as well have been not trying to aim & would have had better luck.
Pretty much standard movie fare, you make the bad guys not able to shoot or aim worth anything because otherwise your heroes would be dead pretty quickly.
