[neocone]

The prey/predator balance is always there: With time an insurgency has its least effective members killed off... so you are left with a mean and fit fighting machine that soon matches the occupying force successfully.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/ ... index.html

The Iraq war is still very gentle for US forces... for now 3k dead is almost nothing. 50k dead in the US per year in car crashes.

Besides... this is URBAN COMBAT. You have to expect 50-70% loss in every unit engaged in a city in the long run... like duh!!!!!

As the high tech gadgetery breaks down (I read somewhere that 30-40% of the Iraq war expenses are now equipment maintenance, for equipment never intended to be used for years IN ACTUAL COMBAT), good old sweat equity and per pedes transportation will reestablish the balance of death between the two waring sides.

[TorrKing]

People in the Norwegian army usually laughs of the US military equipment. While we primarily use a single line of unsexy, tested military equipment, the US has multiple lines of equipment with lots of gadgets. And everything is battery driven. For example: Why not use woolen socks instead of battery heated boots??

The food menus include self-warming cake etc. Why not use common field rations. And if they have to walk off the road (especially in the snow) they start complaining right away.

The US forces are spoiled. End of story.

The Russians are masters at keeping their forces at a low maintainance cost. They use very simple, but highly repairable and replacable equipment.

[seahorse]

Torjus,

You have misconceptions. I was in the American infantry for over 12 years and was never issued battery warmed boots. As far as I know, they don't exist, certainly not in the Army (we were issued the infamous rubber Mickey Mouse boots for extreme cold weather). MREs are the field ration, they can be eaten cold, usually are, or, have a heater that doesn't use a battery, only requires a bit of water to induce the short term chemical reaction to warm some of the ration. The MRE replaced the WWII style canned ration bc they are lighter to the soldier to carry and also thus lighter for transport overseas (meaning more carried per lift with less fuel required). Further, that pack more calories, so fewer MREs are required to be issued per man. Makes sense.

Having been in the military, you will know that some things will always require batters, radios, for example. However, if you do your research, you will see that the American military is leading the drive to a large array of portable solar products for keeping rechargeable batteries going. You won't find these in most other military units.

Probably the most critical thing to the infantry is the rifle, the issue ACOG sights do not use batteries, they are trijicon with a 10 year shelf life, just like the issue compass. There is a rather good AIM Point sight that is battery operated, but has a 50 thousand hour operating life on one batter, so, literally, soldiers can leave it on 24/7 and never have it run down. This AIM Point sight is used in conjunction with an infrared laser, which means an infantry soldier can see and hit a target in total darkness at virtually any distance. You are correct that most armies of the world don't have this equipment, but they would sure love to have the ability to hit targets at night with pinpoint accuracy.

As for the other field equipment, it is the best issued in the world, battle tested now for over three years in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Although I'm personally opposed to the wars, having friends in both places, and having served in the infantry, though never in combat, and having trained with the following armies (French, German, British, Italian, and Turks, and Belgian), I can say that I've never trained with an army that was "tougher" than the American soldier. Anyone in the infantry is generally tough, bc its a tough business. The american infantry is the best in the world right now, simply based on 3 years of real world experience in both the urban environment posed by Iraq and the mountain fighting being done in Afghanistan, in cold weather, at high altitudes.

Hopefully, technologies do change for the better (the reason we don't fight with swords anymore). But, that doesn't mean the intestinal fortitude of the individual infantry man has changed. The equipment carried over the centuries has changed a lot, the human has changed very little.

Keep in mind the average Roman soldier carried a helmet, body armor, all told, about 70 lbs. 2k years later, the soldier today, no matter what army, wears a helmet, body armor, and still carries at least 70lbs of equipment and is still fighting in the same places for the same stupid political and religious reasons as his historical counterparts. Very little has changed.

[TorrKing]

Seahorse

How long ago is it you was in the infantry? It may have changed since then. I was in the Norwegian army only a few years ago I have heard lots of first hand reports of their massive support system. Most of the time even bringing toilets out in the woods with them!

[jeezlouise]

the American military is leading the drive to a large array of portable solar products for keeping rechargeable batteries going.

The insane irony of that sentence is kinda overwhelming me...

[EnergyUnlimited]

Seahorse,

If it is correct, that US army is so well equipped and tough, than how it can be, that it cannot win war with bundle of insurgents in Iraq who are armed with AK47 and hand grenades perhaps?

Why simply not to wait until a nightfall, and shot dead those Iraqui bastards while they cannot see well (and Americans can)?

During last few months I am gradually losing my faith in fighting abilities of army, which is failing to implement successful crowd control measures.

The only way, how Americans could possibly win a war is apparently by means of nuke use (as long as conflict does not spread).

Why all US wars after WWII (with exception of "Great War on Serbs") are turning out to be miserable failures?
Why bundles of crooks in Somalia obliterated elitary American comandos?

I am slowly coming to viev, that high tech gadgetery is of very limited use on the battlefield.
You may say like that: "Once our aircraft has nothing more to bomb, than our war is lost"

[seahorse2]

I will do my best to adress a couple of questions about the American military, as I understand it.

EU asks how competent is the US military, when it can't beat the insurgency in Iraq.

As Clausewitze said, war is the extension of politics. So, if the political body, the American people, don't back the war, then the war will not be fought to the fullest extent of the military capability. (Keep in mind that in two wars with Iraq, the American military easily defeated the Iraqi army in days).

The question posed by EU is, why isn't the war against the insurgency being won? I believe any insurgency could be defeated, it the political will was there to do it, but it isn't there for Iraq. People forget that the American military defeated two insurgencies in its history, the American Civil War and the Indian Wars. However, the American politic was willing to wage a cultural war and kill civilians, children, burn homes, villages, crops to do so. That isn't true in Iraq, for the very fundamental reason that the war is not a cultural war, at least not admittedly so, and you can't "liberate" people by killing them. Thus, the military is forced to become a "police" which not military is capable of doing, ultimately. Thus, we continue to look for the political solution to come from Iraq, which, it won't, until it has its own bloody civil war just as Americans had theirs. Former Secretary of the Army, General Shinseki, was fired for saying it would take 250k soldiers to secure Iraq "after hostilities" which the American politic was unwilling to do and fired him. So, I believe the insurgency itself is merely a reflection of Clausewitz maxim that war is the extension of politics, and in this case, political will is not there to wage a cultural war at all costs, using the entire military, draft if necessary, and open killing and bombing of civilians into submission. I'm one of the Americans opposed to the war, so I'm equally opposed to continuing the occupation for any time. Keep in mind, its not called a war for good reason by the military, its called an occupation. This limits assets and tactics they can employ.

Torjus, unfortunately, technically, the Army may not consider me "out", bc as a former Army officer, the military is taking the position we are subject to recall indefinitely at the needs of the military - I disagree of course. However, in answer to your question, I have not been active since late 1999. However, I have stayed in close contact with my former NCOs, who are all still quite active. Although opposed to the war, I still have strong feelings about the soldiers paying the price for the war and a great interest in how techniques, tactics and equipment are evolving.

As you point out, the American military does have a massive support structure, in part, this massive support network is driven by the fact that America is geographically, surrounded by two huge oceans, thus, it requires a massive support structure to deploy and keep a military fitted, daily, with their needs.

As for toilets, there are units which deploy with toilets, air force, medical units and other support units (non combat arms), but you won't find them in the infantry and other combat arms unless its at some FOB or other more permament base. In the infantry, you dig your own cathole with an e-tool.

The criticism of the American support network is not new and has gone on since, literally, WWII. But Rommel once said that victory goes to the one that wins the support war, which we did in WWII. Despite the massive support structure in WWII, though, Patton still ran out of gas. But the Germans did more often, so they lose.

This massive support network is also driven, in part, by an evolution in the way militaries, maybe cultural morals, have changed (allowed by technology). In the old days, militaries foraged off the land, which only exacerbated the civilian problems. People feared the arrival of Ghengis Kahn, Napoleon, the Red Coats, bc they would be killing your livestock and living in your house. Armies these days typically don't do that anymore, thus, a massive support network is required to keep them fitted and moving on a daily basis.

Its hard to imagine how much food, water, ammo and fuel is needed every 24 hours to support a mere 130k military people in Iraq, but it is massive, not to mention other things like tires, tracks, weapons oil, blah blah blah. Its a tremendous task. I can barely keep enough milk in my refrigerator for 3 kids.

[wankmeister]

People in the Norwegian army usually laughs of the US military equipment. While we primarily use a single line of unsexy, tested military equipment, the US has multiple lines of equipment with lots of gadgets. And everything is battery driven. For example: Why not use woolen socks instead of battery heated boots??

The food menus include self-warming cake etc. Why not use common field rations. And if they have to walk off the road (especially in the snow) they start complaining right away.

The US forces are spoiled. End of story.

The Russians are masters at keeping their forces at a low maintainance cost. They use very simple, but highly repairable and replacable equipment.

Norway has an army?

[EnergyUnlimited]

Norway has an army?

They aparently have rapid underwater reaction division capable to reach Russian sunk submarine within days, even if Russian military had failed to get there during weeks.
If they were invited earlier, some lives of Russian sailors could perhaps be saved...

[neocone]

Well, Iraq is not a matter of the US army policing it... rather it is very ordinary urban combat.

First off a minimum of 500,000 soldier is needed to pacify and country of 26 million half the size of California. Sorry but technology and all the satellites you have wont do jack against good old manpower and methodically going from house to house. Patrolling in HUMVEES is a joke and makes of the troops sitting ducks for a gallery shoot without much military results.

The supersonic planes (sub-sonic at low altitude) are useless and fragile and need to be maintained 60% of the time... the helicopters can be brought down by a single machine gun bullet (they were made to fight tanks in a symmetric cold war era showdown with soviets in what is now East Germany), the Humvees are a disgrace.

The M16 are a joke compared to the dependability of the 50 year old AK47.

America has no equivalent to the rugged and very effective RPG-7. The later and frighteningly stylish weapon is both an anti-personal and anti tank or helicopter grenade launcher.

As it stands now the iraq insurgents have access to russian made machine guns than can fire through walls. They get better and better every day, and the ultra high birth rates among the Iraqi population garantees an endless supply of aggressive young men. Within 10-15 years an entire generation would have grown up hating America and ready to commit to a fight to the Death.

Can the youth here be that commited and brave as the young iraqis are?

Ever saw that one movie... Red Dawn... now substitute the russian names for americans and make the insurgent speak arabic.

You get the picture...

[Dreamtwister]

Ever saw that one movie... Red Dawn...

That movie had some of the worst acting I've ever seen. Your point, however, is well taken.

[BurnCalories]

American military defeated two insurgencies in its history, the American Civil War and the Indian Wars.
The Civil War was not an insurgency; it was an actual war between two state sponsored armies. There was a fear though, that the Confederates would not surrender in 1865 and would actually continue the fight as a guerilla insurgency that would drag on for years,leading to a negotiated peace.
The Indian Wars amounted to official genocide and ethnic cleansing.

[EnergyUnlimited]

Well, Iraq is not a matter of the US army policing it... rather it is very ordinary urban combat...

You may be onto something, but I think that Seahorse is also right.
There is no sufficient political will in the US to win this war.

Try imagine, what would happen to insurgents, if official order to American soldiers is: kill any Iraqui man who appear in your shooting range and rape any woman, which you meet (if you wish).
In addition to that any sufficiently rebelious city (say Faluja) would be nuked.
Adolf Hitler had said: "You cannot win a war with Salvation Army". I am well aware, that we could have entirely different war...

On the other hand I have strong feeling, that American soldiers are slowly loosing ability to fight ordinary war, they are spoiled by gadgets which are not always working, they are of insufficient stamina due to comfortable life at home and much of their arms are liabilities rather than assets (AK47 is superior to M16, no doubt about it).
Few years ago there was much fun in Britain about new American recruits. Apparently largest proportion of US Army recruits was assigned to Legal Support Units. I do not know for certain, is it truth or just a joke.

Obviously there are massive failures on the side of US.
These include.
1. Failure to specify clear objections of war (no one really know, what US Army is trying to achieve in Iraq).
2. Failure to capitalise on initial success (Yes, I remember, few days after Saddam collapse US Army was seen in Iraq as true librators.
3. Failure to realise, what assets are actually needed to wage this war.
4. Failure to estimate American life loss before undertaking occupation task.
5. Failure to convince most of other nations, that this war is actually necessary...

One could count and count similar failures for long, long time.
The worst disgrace for US is that Iran and Syria are now being called to help.
All this "adventure" is turning to be a kind of joke!

[seahorse]

Well, Iraq is not a matter of the US army policing it... rather it is very ordinary urban combat....

neocone, the "mission" in Iraq is a policing "occupation" mission. To do that will sometimes require urban combat, but the fact that it requires urban combat does not make it a "war" mission. The US military mission in Iraq is analgous to the British occupation of N. Ireland. The fact it is deemed an occupation thus means the forces are limited in missions etc. Fallujah being the exception.

First off a minimum of 500,000 soldier is needed to pacify and country of 26 million half the size of California.

I agree with you that the current "occupation" requires substantially more forces than are there now. Gen Shinseki said 250K. Regardless, we all agree much more are needed. The fact that more aren't sent goes back to the point about Clausewitz, war is the extension of politics. The forces are limited, too much so, bc the political situation in the States limits the application of force, in my opinion, rightly so.

Sorry but technology and all the satellites you have wont do jack against good old manpower and methodically going from house to house. Patrolling in HUMVEES is a joke and makes of the troops sitting ducks for a gallery shoot without much military results.

I disagree. The GPS satellites are instrumental in any call for fire, whether that fire support be company mortars, battalion mortars, brigade assets, CAS, or other. The NVG, night sights etc have proven very effective in the urban environment either clearing dark rooms where there is no electricity or simply fighting at night. The HUMVEES, now that they are armored, have proven effective against IEDs using 155mm shells. So, I disagree that the HUMVEE has not proven itself capable as an urban vehicle. The bigger disagreement would be whether the tracked M113s or the new wheeled armored vehicles are the better urban weapon.

The supersonic planes (sub-sonic at low altitude) are useless and fragile and need to be maintained 60% of the time... the helicopters can be brought down by a single machine gun bullet (they were made to fight tanks in a symmetric cold war era showdown with soviets in what is now East Germany), the Humvees are a disgrace.

I don't know why you believe this. There's no support for it. Helicopters are not being brougth down with single bullets, in fact, the Apaches and the Blackhawks are armored underneath and can't be brought down with small arms. So far, they are only being brought down with a direct hit from RPGs which is very difficult to do. Supersonic planes use guided munitions, the height and speed of the aircraft are thus not as important as the guy on the ground painting the target - reference the direct hit on Al Zarquari (misspelled I assume). Again, Hummers have proven themselves very effective. I reference my former platoon sergeant, SFC Mayfield, who survived a direct hit by an IED on his hummer. He and the rest of the 4 man crew survived with no injuries.

The M16 are a joke compared to the dependability of the 50 year old AK47.

This is an old debate, but without a doubt the M16 is far more accurate and has much farther range. The guys in Iraq have been very pleased with the M16 and have enjoyed the fact that they can engage insurgents using AKs outside of the AKs standoff range. You are misinformed.

America has no equivalent to the rugged and very effective RPG-7. The later and frighteningly stylish weapon is both an anti-personal and anti tank or helicopter grenade launcher.

The Americans carry the AT-4 anti-tank rocket which is much more lethal and has 4 times the range of the RPG. Further, every rifle squad has 2 M203 grenade launchers which have an array of rounds, from CS, anti-armor, anti-personel, regular grenade, smoke, etc (350 meter range on an area target). Further, all mounted units have the automatic grenade launcher which fires several hundred grenades per minutes and are absolutely devastating - can easily bring down a building.

As it stands now the iraq insurgents have access to russian made machine guns than can fire through walls.

First, just about any weapon of any caliber can fire through a wall. So, it gets down to what kind of wall. That being said, the American made machineguns, if you are talking about a crew served machine gun (bc an M16 and AK are also machineguns) can fire through any wall that a Russian made machinegun can fire through. The standard American machine gun is now the M240 which is a 7.62mm weapon and is as heavy a caliber as any Russian calibered machinegun. Further, there is a choice of rounds, including anti-armor or incendiary.

They get better and better every day, and the ultra high birth rates among the Iraqi population garantees an endless supply of aggressive young men. Within 10-15 years an entire generation would have grown up hating America and ready to commit to a fight to the Death. Can the youth here be that commited and brave as the young iraqis are?

Have I argued the Americans are winning in Iraq? No. I argued a war like that can be won, if the American people want to fight a cultural war, it would be easy, drop a few nukes. But the majority of the American people, thankfully, are opposed to the war, as am I.

Ever saw that one movie... Red Dawn... now substitute the russian names for americans and make the insurgent speak arabic.

You get the picture...

Was a silly movie, not very accurate. But if you are simply trying to say that the Iraqi people are much more committed than the Americans and ultimately will be forced out, I agree, but not because of the choice of weapons or bc the Americans don't have the ability to destroy the culture, but bc the Americans are not committed to destroying the Iraqis, and thankfully so.

[seahorse]

EU,

Gadgets don't spoil the soldier, they win the battle. Read Vesuvious, which discussing the training of the Roman soldier. I believe it is the oldest western text on military training/tactics. In that book, he makes the point that there is a direct correlation between tactics,success, training, equipment. If you look at any battle I can think of, if one army had superior equipment and training, it one, even against numerically superior odds. There may be exceptions, but none that I can think of.

As for the AK being superior to the M16, I find these statements are usually made by people who have not fired either or not trained with either. The AK has one advantage only, more reliable in dirt. However, its not that big an advantage. Ergonomically, for example, it is inferior. For example, the bolt doesn't lock to the rear when the magazine is discharged, thus the shooter doesn't know if he has a misfire or has to change weapons, this is a big deal in combat. Second, the safety cannot be operated without moving the firing hand away from the trigger, this is a big deal in combat. The magazine cannot be released as easily, this is a big deal in combat. It is far less accurate! This is a big deal in combat. If I can shoot a guy accurately at 300 meters, and he can't accurately shoot back at 300m this is a big deal. That is called standoff range, and the M16 has superior standoff range and accuracy, bar none.

[Dreamtwister]

The AK has one advantage only, more reliable in dirt. However, its not that big an advantage.

More reliable in the dirt. In a desert.

Let us also remember that there are what? About 900 billion AK-47's out there. Accessibility is a big advantage, especially to a non-state entity with limited resources. Anyone, anywhere can pick up an AK-47 and be effective with it in about 10 minutes.

The AK-47 may not be the prefered weapon among professional soldiers, but it has a hell of a lot going for it as a weapon of insurgency.

[neocone]

150,000 well trained soldiers are no match for 30,000 entranched guerilla which is the Iraqi insurgency is now. Now what will the former do when the insurgency rises to a few hundreds of thousands of men, as in the case of a full fledged civil war?

Human beings make for the most lethal weapon of all as a suicide bomber.

Tanks are useless in narrow alleys in cities, in fact they are moving coffins as experienced by the russian army in Grozny. There the whole city had to be razed to actually be won.

All the apache shot down by the insurgent were done in by AK-47's or RPG detonating nearby... remember all you need is damage the blade or the main or secondary rotor, and the bird ain't no flying. And in cities filled with people ready to skin you alive you can't exactly be happy when you land in an emergency.

If the US has such an array of superior weaponry... how come it is useless against IED's???

As for an F16 or F18... you can punch a hole in a wing given the pricey and fragile and hand made vehicle is made up of thin composites. On a MIG you can do chin ups while hanging on a wing!!!

The US's production of high tech weapons is very limited... and spare parts are rare once the gadgets start to fall apart due to wear and tear.

And I also forgot: The insurgency uses the cell phone network to coordinate everything, meanwhile the US military has some half baked proprietary communication system which is short of "the last 30 ft" in some general's word. It was supposed to link GPS with transfer of tactical data (say knowing where some insurgent leader would be).

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB ... d=rss_free

Speaking of the US civil war, it showed the federal army's incompetence: Lee brilliantly led the confederates to victories even at a 3 to 1 ratio. Chancellorville is a masterpiece to match Gen. Hannibal's victory at Cannes over the Romans. Lee also invented the concept of trench warfare, where the vastly inferior in numbers confederates where able to slaughter the vast manpower Grant sent in a stupid assault at Cold Harbor. This even in the last months of the war. The confederates actually CAME THAT CLOSE to winning at Gettysburg the whole war, for Jackson to have been killed at Chancelorville...

[EnergyUnlimited]

EU,

Gadgets don't spoil the soldier, they win the battle. Read Vesuvious, which discussing the training of the Roman soldier. I believe it is the oldest western text on military training/tactics. In that book, he makes the point that there is a direct correlation between tactics,success, training, equipment. If you look at any battle I can think of, if one army had superior equipment and training, it one, even against numerically superior odds. There may be exceptions, but none that I can think of.

An example is perhaps Gingis Khan army.
He united France with Korea and Syberia with Malaysia at the same time.
His winner card was a superior tactics.
Heavy (and useless) gadgets were really detrimental to medieval knights fighting Mongolians.

I will not argue more about AK47/M16, if you are Army Officer, you probably know better, but I had often heared stories about American soldiers in VietNam throwing away their own arms, if they found abandoned AK47 to replace them.
Surely they had a good reason to do that.

[neocone]

but I had often heared stories about American soldiers in VietNam thowing away their own arms, if they found abandoned AK47 to replace them.
Surely they had a reason to do that.

In fact it is well known that some US squads would hunt vietcongs to steal their AK-47s, for the M16 to be such a useless POS.

For proponents of bribe-financed "new gadgets" (exhibit: Disgraced Sen. Cunningham from San Diego steered hundred of millions of $$$ worth of military contracts from the Pentagon to shady firms in exchange for bribes, and is now serving 8 years in jail) don't realize that when those things have to be actually used in combat, they generally fail miserably.

How come the US troops had to armor their HUMVEES? How come the US Navy wants to finance a jeep like contration that is a friggin CONVERTIBLE with no roof!!!??? How come marines had to borrow anti-bullet vests from polish troops, for those were made back in the socialist era and were meant to also protect against the SHRAPNEL of RPG's?

[Dreamtwister]

[but I had often heared stories about American soldiers in VietNam throwing away their own arms, if they found abandoned AK47 to replace them.
Surely they had a good reason to do that.

During Viet Nam, the M-16 was notorious for jamming. In addition, they were initially shipped with no cleaning kits whatsoever.

Jungle + dirty weapon prone to jamming = useless luggage.

The weapon has been redesigned since then. It is far more reliable and the soldiers are better trained in their proper use and care.

But one of the tradeoffs of a sophisticated weapon is it's increased difficulty in use. That is the AK-47's greatest strength. Literally anyone anywhere can pick one up and be effective with it in about 10 minutes, whereas the M-16 is a little more complicated.