Increase Force Size

[JALU3]

At the height of World War II the United States fielded over 92 Divisions of Infantry and over 10 Armored Divisions, and countless number of other units of brigade and battalion sized elements. During the Cold War the size of the army began to decrease where by the end of the cold war leading into the Persian Gulf War the US Army was down to 20 active divisions. Now in the midst of two major operations, while having to sustain forces in two other theaters, the US Army has been able to manage within this relatively brief period of time with only 10 active divisions, and roughly 10 national guard divisions. However, as reported by the present army staff. Thus US Army cannot continue to sustain the current operation tempo unless the reduce deployments to 12 months, where as the average deployment period has ben 15 months.
One solution to this problem that no one has brought up is an increase in the size of our Army. Although there has been an initiative to increase the force size by a little over 35,000 soldiers, that will only be about 1 division worth of individuals, and those are being dispursed amoungst existing divisions meaning that there is no noticable increase in force size.
With a nation of over 300 Million citizens, and with total expenditures on national defense continuing to decrease year after year in relation to the GDP, I don't see why our nation can't afford to increase the size of the army, whether that be by 5,10, or 15 divisions. Furthermore, with increaseed military expenditure those funds will be used to purchase equipment in the private sector, and more soldiers will spend their pay within the private sector as well.
-----
Oh a side topic, how is it that everyone is in a tizzy about GE's reported reduction in profit . . . not a loss . . . but a reduction in profit . . . and in doing so have the company loose over 10% of its total stock value?!?
It didn't post a quarterly loss . . . rather they are not profiting to the toon of a 4.9 Billion Dollars . . . but to a mere 4.36 Billion Dollars . . . that Billion with nine zeroes after the numbers! OMG!
I don't know about you but that still sounds like a positive thing to me.
Related Article:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aCLKAmIILQfc&refer=worldwide (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vd3d3LmJsb29tYmVyZy5jb20vYXBwcy9uZXdzP3 BpZD0yMDYwMTA4NyZhbXA7c2lkPWFDTEtBbUlJTFFmYyZhbXA7 cmVmZXI9d29ybGR3aWRl)

[Trex]

Part of it is that modern forces are incredibly more capable, more lethal, more aware, than their WW2 counterparts. Artillery has far greater range and can in some cases score first-round hits instead of having to fire hundreds of rounds to take out a given target. This means that you can have fewer guns but still do better than before. Air mobility has dramatically improved tactical flexibility. Modern armour breaks down far less often, meaning that you have a bigger slice available for operations. Sensors increase your situational awareness to an extent undreamed of by Patton or Rommel. If you look at pictures of wars c 1900, say the Japanese-Russian war, you will see trenches defended with men literally shoulder-to-shoulder. That was the current standard. We would laugh at that now – there is simply no need.

Another problem is cost. I don’t know the figures for US soldiers, but the cost of the basic kit for a Canadian soldier in WW2 was on the close order of $135, including rifle, clothing, gas mask, etc. You couldn't buy his rifle magazines for that now. A Spitfire could be produced for about £5,000, but a modern fighter aircraft now costs hundreds of millions of dollars. Yes, there has been inflation since then, but not enough to account for it. Our more capable forces cost us an incredibly larger amount of money.

This last trend has been emphasized by the desire on the part of the Western world to substitute equipment for manpower. A drone will not leave grieving relatives if shot down. Even the CIA switched away from agents to satellites and electronic intelligence gathering (which proved a bit of a mistake as photographs do no tell you intentions).

Lastly, in WW2, national survival was on the line and the country was prepared to accept significant greater disruptions to its daily life, economy, etc.

However desirable it may be, it’s not quite as simple as it seems. Pity.

[JALU3]

I have a need to play necromancy, as this subject was on my mind again.

Given the recent political discussions about deployment effects on the overall force of the Army between the two presumtive US Presidential candidates. Why is it that we have not worked to increase the size of the land components of the armed forces . . . and what increase that has happened have been smaller then the force really needed.
Whenever the idea of increasing the size of the army is bantered about the counter of having to call up a draft is brought up. I say this is nonsense as we were able to maintan a 20 division volunteer army in the past, with a smaller national population overall. Therefore, we should be able to raise 5 more divisions to bring us to a force strength of 15 divisions if given enough time.
An overall increase of the size of the military would do a lot to remove the strain to the overall force while maintaining presence in both areas of operation within that one theater, if need be.
I am sure there would be tens of thousands of people who wish to become naturalized citizens if they were required to serve a predetermined length of service (10 years?).
It's not like we don't have the trained personnel to bring up these divisions in short order. There are dozens of units in the Army Reserve and National Guard woes original purpose is to train new units from the bottom, up. Its just a matter of bringing them online in an active sense to accomplish the task.

[Schroeder]

Have you had a look at the financial situation of the US recently? Where do you take the money from to increase the size of the military?

[Skybird]

Have you had a look at the financial situation of the US recently? Where do you take the money from to increase the size of the military?
My words. Even the current level of military spending is only possible by foreign money going into the US. Just image the Chinese would stop cpntinuing to buy (nowadays relatively worthless) treasury bonds! As some critic pointedly remarked - ironically it is the chinese (who opposed the Iraq war) that are financing the war. I think a shift in force compisition would be eneded, to get a higher manpower, away from cost-intensive hightech and electrinics and platforms, towards more basic infantry. But tell that the industrial-military complex - they will run amok.

[JALU3]

Have you had a look at the financial situation of the US recently? Where do you take the money from to increase the size of the military?
My words. Even the current level of military spending is only possible by foreign money going into the US. Just image the Chinese would stop cpntinuing to buy (nowadays relatively worthless) treasury bonds! As some critic pointedly remarked - ironically it is the chinese (who opposed the Iraq war) that are financing the war. I think a shift in force compisition would be eneded, to get a higher manpower, away from cost-intensive hightech and electrinics and platforms, towards more basic infantry. But tell that the industrial-military complex - they will run amok.
Since we have sold our manufacturing base willingly :shifty:
However, in COIN operations, aren't alot of what creates a successful campaign a lot of the low-tech, highly-intellectual, actions which do not require the high ticket items whcih the military-industrial complex request the army to purchase.
Not that we haven't already passed the most recent aquisition cycle leaving the majority of the force with equipment that is at least half a generation older then what is currently available.
I think a possible problem is that recent visions of the future force envision the entire force to be the 'tip of the spear' without considering that a lot of the force of said spear is the mass behind it.
As for funding of our military, if we spent our GDP more prudently, I am sure as a nation we could finance a larger land-based military without straining the economy.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Since we have sold our manufacturing base willingly :shifty:

However, in COIN operations, aren't alot of what creates a successful campaign a lot of the low-tech, highly-intellectual, actions which do not require the high ticket items whcih the military-industrial complex request the army to purchase.

Not that we haven't already passed the most recent aquisition cycle leaving the majority of the force with equipment that is at least half a generation older then what is currently available.

I think a possible problem is that recent visions of the future force envision the entire force to be the 'tip of the spear' without considering that a lot of the force of said spear is the mass behind it.

As for funding of our military, if we spent our GDP more prudently, I am sure as a nation we could finance a larger land-based military without straining the economy.


I'm going to have to check on this but I am pretty sure that, inflation adjusted, our GDP is higher now than it was at the peak of force expansion in ww2. Problem was, they couldn't afford it then, either. The U.S.A.'s fiscal health took another nosedive with Lyndon Johnson's "Guns and Butter" program. And we continue to spend money we don't have today. Every dollar the Government borrows or prints brings us a little closer to monetary collapse, and yet even now, as we approach the point of no return, the spending continues.

You're right about COIN ops. If we had Arab-American infiltrators and indiginous counterinsurgents acting as a secret police force the situation would be a lot different. Don't worry though, we'll get it right in the next war, although that war will require a completely different strategy, thus perpetuating a long-standing American tradition of fighting the last war.
Even better would be to have some cultural context and simply split Iraq into three parts. Notice how well that worked in the Balkans? The Government didn't.

You are also correct that our eqipment is not the best although a lot of it is pretty good. While our multimillion dollar weapons are some of, if not THE best around, the average footsoldier is outgunned, outarmored, and outclassed by Blackwater operatives. Just another example of private industry doing things better than government.

There have been growing concerns about the "toothiness" (combat to support personnel ratio) of our armed forces for decades now. My stance on this is that an even smaller, even better equipped force that requires a lot more initial aptitude and a lot more training. A significant portion of our ground troops at this time are drug-waivers, ASVAB-waivers, Criminal-record-waivers, and other less than stellar types. If the military paid well and expected more from its' potential recruits, it might be more effective.

And finally, I don't quite think "spending the GDP" is the problem, inasmuch as GDP isn't really spent. GDP is a measure of buisness capital. Theoretically we could spend the whole thing and make even more money. What we are spending is our tax income. Often several times over. This has nothing to do with outsourcing manufacturing jobs or importing cheap labor. It has everything to do with government devaluing our currency (yes, banks do too but there is a limit for them)
and creating an environment that it unfriendly to investment and business growth. The only reason our country has been as successful as it has is that almost everyone else is even worse. Countries that do embrace buisness (Switzerland, the Asian "Tigers", Lichtenstein and the like) have frequently given America cause for alarm as they steal sectors of the market away from us. Hypothetically we could outsource every low-paying job in the nation as long as the companies that outsource are based here. Imagine the economic power of the U.S. combined with the lassiez-faire regulation and taxation of Hong Kong. We would be unstoppable.

Wait I'm drifting off-topic now so I shall desist.

Point is, military and economic failures have two principal causes; politics and, well, that actually sums it up.