cowboycwr said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

The US Army is the second best fighting force on the planet and they are only second because we have the US Marine Corps.

---

The US Army can't succeed in any combat situation without overwhelming air support .

Has been the case for many decades .

---

Some yes but there are lots of examples since WW2 of them doing very well without air support.

---

' Lies"





What major conflict did the army succeed without the Navy and Air Force providing massive air support ?

cowboycwr said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

The US Army is the second best fighting force on the planet and they are only second because we have the US Marine Corps.

---

The US Army can't succeed in any combat situation without overwhelming air support .

Has been the case for many decades .

---

I would not say any situation. Some yes but there are lots of examples since WW2 of them doing very well without air support.

---

You may have many talents......but a working knowledge of US history certainly isn't one of them .

Osodecentx said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

The US Army is the second best fighting force on the planet and they are only second because we have the US Marine Corps.

---

The US Army can't succeed in any combat situation without overwhelming air support .

Has been the case for many decades .

---

Sorry. That is straight up fallacy. Made up.

---

Hardly

WW2, Korea, Vietnam clearly show otherwise .

---

There is so much wrong with your assertion that if I replied in kind no one would even read it.

The only thing you're right about is that politics get in the way of an effective army. I would add the media does as well.

The capability of the US Army is unmatched on this planet. Outcomes are often not tied directly to capability.

WW2 basically all parties were of relatively equal strength. That's simply not true any more. A near century of military spending has is miles ahead. Air superiority clearly won the war. This is not 1942.

The effectiveness of the US Army has literally nothing to do with the outcomes in Korea or Vietnam.

---

In Korea the US Army performed so badly the British units developed a total contempt for it .

They did respect the Marines however .

Vietnam was even worse . Without air support the army was a joke .

---

Vietnam was half a century ago, hoss.

We had some actual soldier-types with good ideas and better work ethic rebuild the Army.

---

LOL !


Based on exactly what....the disaster in Afghanistan ?

Drive around Fort Hood or Fort Bliss and check out all the porkers . 240 lbs plus is not uncommon .

Without massive amounts of air support this collective social experiment couldn't whip the French .

---

We had total air superiority in Afghanistan.

---

Of course........and it still didn't matter.

Except for a relative handful of 'special forces'.......the US Army is a joke.

Merely an enormous social experiment.

Horribly led and incapable of defeating a determined foe without total air supremacy .


However the USAF, Navy, and Marines are still first rate.

---

We'll have to disagree on the Army

---

My friend....respectful disagreement is not the 'cool' approach here.

The common methodology is call the other contributor a liar while repeatedly declaring yourself the 'winner' of the conversation .

Canada2017 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

The US Army is the second best fighting force on the planet and they are only second because we have the US Marine Corps.

---

The US Army can't succeed in any combat situation without overwhelming air support .

Has been the case for many decades .

---

Sorry. That is straight up fallacy. Made up.

---

Hardly

WW2, Korea, Vietnam clearly show otherwise .

---

There is so much wrong with your assertion that if I replied in kind no one would even read it.

The only thing you're right about is that politics get in the way of an effective army. I would add the media does as well.

The capability of the US Army is unmatched on this planet. Outcomes are often not tied directly to capability.

WW2 basically all parties were of relatively equal strength. That's simply not true any more. A near century of military spending has is miles ahead. Air superiority clearly won the war. This is not 1942.

The effectiveness of the US Army has literally nothing to do with the outcomes in Korea or Vietnam.

---

In Korea the US Army performed so badly the British units developed a total contempt for it .

They did respect the Marines however .

Vietnam was even worse . Without air support the army was a joke .

---

Vietnam was half a century ago, hoss.

We had some actual soldier-types with good ideas and better work ethic rebuild the Army.

---

LOL !


Based on exactly what....the disaster in Afghanistan ?

Drive around Fort Hood or Fort Bliss and check out all the porkers . 240 lbs plus is not uncommon .

Without massive amounts of air support this collective social experiment couldn't whip the French .

---

We had total air superiority in Afghanistan.

---

Of course........and it still didn't matter.

Except for a relative handful of 'special forces'.......the US Army is a joke.

Merely an enormous social experiment.

Horribly led and incapable of defeating a determined foe without total air supremacy .


However the USAF, Navy, and Marines are still first rate.

---

We'll have to disagree on the Army

---

My friend....respectful disagreement is not the 'cool' approach here.

The common methodology is call the other contributor a liar while repeatedly declaring yourself the 'winner' of the conversation .

---

We're both old guys. Let's show them how it should be done

Osodecentx said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

The US Army is the second best fighting force on the planet and they are only second because we have the US Marine Corps.

---

The US Army can't succeed in any combat situation without overwhelming air support .

Has been the case for many decades .

---

Sorry. That is straight up fallacy. Made up.

---

Hardly

WW2, Korea, Vietnam clearly show otherwise .

---

There is so much wrong with your assertion that if I replied in kind no one would even read it.

The only thing you're right about is that politics get in the way of an effective army. I would add the media does as well.

The capability of the US Army is unmatched on this planet. Outcomes are often not tied directly to capability.

WW2 basically all parties were of relatively equal strength. That's simply not true any more. A near century of military spending has is miles ahead. Air superiority clearly won the war. This is not 1942.

The effectiveness of the US Army has literally nothing to do with the outcomes in Korea or Vietnam.

---

In Korea the US Army performed so badly the British units developed a total contempt for it .

They did respect the Marines however .

Vietnam was even worse . Without air support the army was a joke .

---

Vietnam was half a century ago, hoss.

We had some actual soldier-types with good ideas and better work ethic rebuild the Army.

---

LOL !


Based on exactly what....the disaster in Afghanistan ?

Drive around Fort Hood or Fort Bliss and check out all the porkers . 240 lbs plus is not uncommon .

Without massive amounts of air support this collective social experiment couldn't whip the French .

---

We had total air superiority in Afghanistan.

---

Of course........and it still didn't matter.

Except for a relative handful of 'special forces'.......the US Army is a joke.

Merely an enormous social experiment.

Horribly led and incapable of defeating a determined foe without total air supremacy .


However the USAF, Navy, and Marines are still first rate.

---

We'll have to disagree on the Army

---

My friend....respectful disagreement is not the 'cool' approach here.

The common methodology is call the other contributor a liar while repeatedly declaring yourself the 'winner' of the conversation .

---

We're both old guys.

---

Speak for yourself ! LOL

66 is the 'new'......... ..................................................62 ?



Dropped 35 lbs and in the best physical condition since covid began .

Got 3 trips planned......Dallas, Florida and Maine .

Osodecentx said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

However the USAF, Navy, and Marines are still first rate.

---

We'll have to disagree on the Army

---

My friend....respectful disagreement is not the 'cool' approach here.

The common methodology is call the other contributor a liar while repeatedly declaring yourself the 'winner' of the conversation .

---

We're both old guys. Let's show them how it should be done

---

It would be a nice change to see.

cowboycwr said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

So much wishful thinking .

Totally unverified estimates .

Reminds me of Walter Cronkite and his weekly Vietnam War 'body counts ' .

---

What do you think now?

---

Putin has to win to survive .

Roads are drying out......skies are clearing .




He is going to double down......probably by air .

The key players remain Poland , Great Britain and Turkey .

---

Do you still think none of our military leaders believe we could win against Russia?

---

There are a number of nations which could beat Russia if the starting line was Kharkov. Ergo why Russia is campaigning so earnestly in Ukraine.

The Russians have never been good, not at any point in their history, to include the Cold War. They are big, resilient, brutal, and they know it, and that leads them to think everybody else is little, brittle, unserious, foppish, effete, etc..... They are fairly sloppy and dismissive of technology. For example, their doctrine on aircraft is to make them fast, agile, and rugged and not terribly sophisticated, because sophisticated systems exist in tension with the concept of rugged. Ok, fine. Sound logic. IF that equipment is reliable, which it is not. Look at all the abandoned vehicles. "Russian" is synonymous with shoddy. And "Russian logistics" is as much of an oxymoron as "military intelligence."

Those problems are compounded by Russian tactical doctrine, largely unchanged since the Cold War. Very rigid, predictable order of battle and deployment. Like many poorly trained armies, soldiers show little initiative. They follow orders, and respond to leadership, but without leadership they are offensively combat ineffective. Literally, put a bullet between the eyes of a Russian Captain, and the company movement grinds to a halt. Now, they'll defend that position to the last man with great resolution. That's what Russians are best at. Suffering.

Is what we see in the news consistent with the above?
Exactly.

Old NSA friend (Texan) who took me under his wing when I arrived at my first post said this to me 36 years ago: "Russia is a third world country with nuclear weapons." It is as true today as it was then. In conventional operations, we would slice thru the Russian Army about like we sliced thru the Iraqi Army.

Just came across this in my feed. Compare assessments in the article to what I posted above.

https://theaviationist.com/2015/04/08/mig-29-in-close-air-combat/

Just airframe to airframe, Mig-29 is a hunter-killer beast. But the details.....

This article details all of the Russian generals and high ranking officers that have been lost to date. It starts with this colonel, but then goes through all of the rest. Interesting read.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10702421/Ukraine-war-Putin-loses-NINTH-colonel-tank-commander-latest-Russian-officer-killed.html

Canada2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

The US Army is the second best fighting force on the planet and they are only second because we have the US Marine Corps.

---

The US Army can't succeed in any combat situation without overwhelming air support .

Has been the case for many decades .

---

Sorry. That is straight up fallacy. Made up.

---

Hardly

WW2, Korea, Vietnam clearly show otherwise .

---

There is so much wrong with your assertion that if I replied in kind no one would even read it.

The only thing you're right about is that politics get in the way of an effective army. I would add the media does as well.

The capability of the US Army is unmatched on this planet. Outcomes are often not tied directly to capability.

WW2 basically all parties were of relatively equal strength. That's simply not true any more. A near century of military spending has is miles ahead. Air superiority clearly won the war. This is not 1942.

The effectiveness of the US Army has literally nothing to do with the outcomes in Korea or Vietnam.

---

In Korea the US Army performed so badly the British units developed a total contempt for it .

They did respect the Marines however .

Vietnam was even worse . Without air support the army was a joke .

---

Vietnam was half a century ago, hoss.

We had some actual soldier-types with good ideas and better work ethic rebuild the Army.

---

LOL !


Based on exactly what....the disaster in Afghanistan ?

Drive around Fort Hood or Fort Bliss and check out all the porkers . 240 lbs plus is not uncommon .

Without massive amounts of air support this collective social experiment couldn't whip the French .

---

I worked for several years in Killeen and interacted daily with soldiers stationed at Ft. Hood. While you could find a porker here or there, the vast majority were NOT. Your statement is incorrect.

whiterock said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

So muble down......probably by air .

---

---

---

---

There are a number of nations which could beat Russia if the starting line was Kharkov. Ergo why Russia is campaigning so earnestly in Ukraine.

The Russians have never been good, not at any point in their history, to include the Cold War. They are big, resilient, brutal, and they know it, and that leads them to think everybody else is little, brittle, unserious, foppish, effete, etc..... They are fairly sloppy and dismissive of technology. For example, their doctrine on aircraft is to make them fast, agile, and rugged and not terribly sophisticated, because sophisticated systems exist in tension with the concept of rugged. Ok, fine. Sound logic. IF that equipment is reliable, which it is not. Look at all the abandoned vehicles. "Russian" is synonymous with shoddy. And "Russian logistics" is as much of an oxymoron as "military intelligence."

Those problems are compounded by Russian tactical doctrine, largely unchanged since the Cold War. Very rigid, predictable order of battle and deployment. Like many poorly trained armies, soldiers show little initiative. They follow orders, and respond to leadership, but without leadership they are offensively combat ineffective. Literally, put a bullet between the eyes of a Russian Captain, and the company movement grinds to a halt. Now, they'll defend that position to the last man with great resolution. That's what Russians are best at. Suffering.

Is what we see in the news consistent with the above?
Exactly.

Old NSA friend (Texan) who took me under his wing when I arrived at my first post said this to me 36 years ago: "Russia is a third world country with nuclear weapons." It is as true today as it was then. In conventional operations, we would slice thru the Russian Army about like we sliced thru the Iraqi Army.

---

very accurate.

- kkm

Canada2017 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

The US Army is the second best fighting force on the planet and they are only second because we have the US Marine Corps.

---

The US Army can't succeed in any combat situation without overwhelming air support .

Has been the case for many decades .

---

Some yes but there are lots of examples since WW2 of them doing very well without air support.

---

' Lies"





What major conflict did the army succeed without the Navy and Air Force providing massive air support ?

---

The whole conflict or just battles?

I am talking about battles. There are lots of examples of the army doing well, holding off overwhelming numbers of enemies and living. Usually at the end of the battle the air power comes into play to end the battle but the battle still shows that the Army can perform well.

But since WW1 there has not really been a conflict that did not involve all aspects of our military working together. Except maybe the small quick ones like a Panama or Grenada. So your looking for an entire conflict of the Army by their self isn't really realistic.

Canada2017 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

The US Army is the second best fighting force on the planet and they are only second because we have the US Marine Corps.

---

The US Army can't succeed in any combat situation without overwhelming air support .

Has been the case for many decades .

---

I would not say any situation. Some yes but there are lots of examples since WW2 of them doing very well without air support.

---

You may have many talents......but a working knowledge of US history certainly isn't one of them .

---

I know more about history than you could ever hope to.

There are plenty of situations where the US Army has performed well without air support.

But as I said in my post above these days there are almost no battles that take place where it is ONLY ground soldiers fighting with no artillery support, and no air support.

IN Korea there are examples of the Army fighting well.

Same for Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

cowboycwr said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

The US Army is the second best fighting force on the planet and they are only second because we have the US Marine Corps.

---

The US Army can't succeed in any combat situation without overwhelming air support .

Has been the case for many decades .

---

I would not say any situation. Some yes but there are lots of examples since WW2 of them doing very well without air support.

---

You may have many talents......but a working knowledge of US history certainly isn't one of them .

---

I know more about history than you could ever hope to.

---

Naturally

The fact that one of my double majors as an undergraduate was history ......is of no account .

That my personal library is littered with dozens of history books ....with dozens more permanently lent out ....is of no account .





Regardless my premise remains .

The US army is a joke....has been a joke for decades.

The record clearly shows our ground troops have become incredibly dependent upon overwhelming air supremacy .....and without it they have major issues.

WW2
Korea
Vietnam
Desert Storm


All the same .




Fortunately the Air Force, Navy and Marines remain first rate .

Canada2017 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

The US Army is the second best fighting force on the planet and they are only second because we have the US Marine Corps.

---

The US Army can't succeed in any combat situation without overwhelming air support .

Has been the case for many decades .

---

I would not say any situation. Some yes but there are lots of examples since WW2 of them doing very well without air support.

---

You may have many talents......but a working knowledge of US history certainly isn't one of them .

---

I know more about history than you could ever hope to.

---

Naturally

The fact that one of my double majors as an undergraduate was history ......is of no account .

That my personal library is littered with dozens of history books ....with dozens more permanently lent out ....is of no account .





Regardless my premise remains .

The US army is a joke....has been a joke for decades.

The record clearly shows our ground troops have become incredibly dependent upon overwhelming air supremacy .....and without it they have major issues.

WW2
Korea
Vietnam
Desert Storm


All the same .




Fortunately the Air Force, Navy and Marines remain first rate .

---

People can have lots of books... but it doesn't mean they have read them AND understood them.

People can have degrees because they barely passed the classes but it doesn't mean they know more than someone else with the same degree.

Yes you keep making the same premise but provide zero facts. I have asked for clarification if you are talking about the whole war or just individual battles. Yet you ignore that and just say the same thing.... as if repeating it enough makes it true.

So are you talking the whole war or individual battles?

Because your premise is flawed if you mean the whole war. Since WW2 there have been no wars that have involved the US where all the branches did not participate. There have been few armies that have fought without air power of any kind and been successful.

The Vietnamese won because of politics, lack of support here in the US to continue the war, the strategy carried out (based on politics) and not because of air power, a superior army, etc. Because even during that war there are plenty of examples of the US army fighting a battle against a more numerous enemy, holding their ground and eventually winning. Because the military practice is to use air power there is always air power involved because we don't leave our soldiers to fight without providing air cover.

WW2- Battle of the bulge. One of the most famous battles of the war. Because of weather air power was a minor player for much of the battle. And yet the army performed well. They even broke through the German lines to get to Bastogne when the air power was still minimal.

D-Day.... air power and naval power were largely ineffective.... and the army won.

The break out of the hedgerows.... was mostly the result of the army not air power.

You seem to be acting as if our army can't win without air power but failing to understand our modern military strategy is for them to NOT HAVE to but to rather destroy the enemy with our air power and then have the army or marines come in to finish them off. You make the claim that the ground forces have become dependent on overwhelming air superiority and that is true to an extent because as I have said that is the standard military policy/practice/procedure. When you hit a tough obstacle, strong force, etc. don't' throw troops at it like a Picket's charge/ trenches of WW1/ Russian tactic of WW2, Chinese in Korea but pull back and call in the artillery and air power to blow them up.

There is no separating the two because even the army has air power (attack helicopters) and uses it as part of their main strategy.

Girls girls! You're both pretty, ok?

Canon said:

---

Girls girls! You're both pretty, ok?

---

Flirt

cowboycwr said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

The US Army is the second best fighting force on the planet and they are only second because we have the US Marine Corps.

---

The US Army can't succeed in any combat situation without overwhelming air support .

Has been the case for many decades .

---

I would not say any situation. Some yes but there are lots of examples since WW2 of them doing very well without air support.

---

You may have many talents......but a working knowledge of US history certainly isn't one of them .

---

I know more about history than you could ever hope to.

---

Naturally

The fact that one of my double majors as an undergraduate was history ......is of no account .

That my personal library is littered with dozens of history books ....with dozens more permanently lent out ....is of no account .





Regardless my premise remains .

The US army is a joke....has been a joke for decades.

The record clearly shows our ground troops have become incredibly dependent upon overwhelming air supremacy .....and without it they have major issues.

WW2
Korea
Vietnam
Desert Storm


All the same .




Fortunately the Air Force, Navy and Marines remain first rate .

---

People can have lots of books... but it doesn't mean they have read them AND understood them.

People can have degrees because they barely passed the classes but it doesn't mean they know more than someone else with the same degree.

Yes you keep making the same premise but provide zero facts. I have asked for clarification if you are talking about the whole war or just individual battles. Yet you ignore that and just say the same thing.... as if repeating it enough makes it true.

So are you talking the whole war or individual battles?

Because your premise is flawed if you mean the whole war. Since WW2 there have been no wars that have involved the US where all the branches did not participate. There have been few armies that have fought without air power of any kind and been successful.

The Vietnamese won because of politics, lack of support here in the US to continue the war, the strategy carried out (based on politics) and not because of air power, a superior army, etc. Because even during that war there are plenty of examples of the US army fighting a battle against a more numerous enemy, holding their ground and eventually winning. Because the military practice is to use air power there is always air power involved because we don't leave our soldiers to fight without providing air cover.

WW2- Battle of the bulge. One of the most famous battles of the war. Because of weather air power was a minor player for much of the battle. And yet the army performed well. They even broke through the German lines to get to Bastogne when the air power was still minimal.

D-Day.... air power and naval power were largely ineffective.... and the army won.

The break out of the hedgerows.... was mostly the result of the army not air power.

You seem to be acting as if our army can't win without air power but failing to understand our modern military strategy is for them to NOT HAVE to but to rather destroy the enemy with our air power and then have the army or marines come in to finish them off. You make the claim that the ground forces have become dependent on overwhelming air superiority and that is true to an extent because as I have said that is the standard military policy/practice/procedure. When you hit a tough obstacle, strong force, etc. don't' throw troops at it like a Picket's charge/ trenches of WW1/ Russian tactic of WW2, Chinese in Korea but pull back and call in the artillery and air power to blow them up.

There is no separating the two because even the army has air power (attack helicopters) and uses it as part of their main strategy.

---

chuckle

Have never ---ever ----read where you have admitted you were wrong about anything ,

And have zero expectations that you will this time .

But I've got a few minutes to kill.

WW2 the army performed horribly in the Pacific ....marines had to bail them out constantly . Many examples......google is your friend .

In Europe German troops....man for man ...far outclassed our GI's. And most of Germany's best divisions were on the eastern front . Despite all the hype about D-Day ....many of 'Germany's ' troops were in fact former POW's who chose to join the German Army rather than starve to death in the POW camps. Many surrendered the first chance they got.

Even with overwhelming air support and facing some mediocre formations .......it was only massive, concentrated bomber strikes that finally allowed the Allies to break through the hedgerow country .

In Italy, despite overwhelming numbers. naval and air support ...the US army bungled one operation after another . GI's ( black troops in particular ) garnered a notorious reputation for raping Italian women .

Korea....the army performed so badly.....constantly running away ....that British units learned to double check their flanks each evening . If it was a Marine unit.....the British knew they would hold. If an Army unit...the British learned there was at least a 50% chance the GI's would be gone before daylight. BTW the British blamed the US army officers habit of 'leading' from the BACK.

Vietnam.......Drug use, murdering their own officers, refusing to obey orders......all were rampant .

Afghanistan .........nuff said .





OK....times up.


Just declare yourself the 'winner' as usual.................I got to go to the gym .

To get back on topic,
In the Winter War of 1940 between Finland and USSR, it took the Soviet forces (with a better than 2 to 1 advantage in major engagements) 3 and 1/2 months to defeat the Finns, who had little to no international support. This description of the war is straight from good ol' Wikipedia, but it has reference:

"According to Trotter, the favoured Soviet armoured tactic was a simple frontal charge, the weaknesses of which could be exploited. The Finns learned that at close range, tanks could be dealt with in many ways; for example, logs and crowbars jammed into the bogie wheels would often immobilise a tank. Soon, Finns fielded a better ad hoc weapon, the Molotov cocktail, a glass bottle filled with flammable liquids and with a simple hand-lit fuse. Molotov cocktails were eventually mass-produced by the Finnish Alko alcoholic-beverage corporation and bundled with matches with which to light them. 80 Soviet tanks were destroyed in the border zone engagements."

Sound familiar?

cowboycwr said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

The US Army is the second best fighting force on the planet and they are only second because we have the US Marine Corps.

---

The US Army can't succeed in any combat situation without overwhelming air support .

Has been the case for many decades .

---

I would not say any situation. Some yes but there are lots of examples since WW2 of them doing very well without air support.

---

You may have many talents......but a working knowledge of US history certainly isn't one of them .

---

I know more about history than you could ever hope to.

There are plenty of situations where the US Army has performed well without air support.

But as I said in my post above these days there are almost no battles that take place where it is ONLY ground soldiers fighting with no artillery support, and no air support.

IN Korea there are examples of the Army fighting well.

Same for Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

---

the ability to engage in combined arms warfare is what almost always decides the outcome of conventional warfare. The nations which cannot do it rarely win. And even when both nations can do it, the aim of the war for each side is to degrade the other's ability to do one or more pieces of it. The side which degrades the other first usually wins. You lose air supremacy or naval supremacy, and the logistics of land operations start getting complicated pretty quickly.

NOBODY does combined arms warfare as well as we do.
Saying it's "not even close" understates it.

Vietnam falls into the guerilla war category. VietCong had no aircraft, armor, or navy beyond sampans. They lost almost every engagement, most particularly the Tet Offensive, which was portrayed as a defeat for us in the US media but in fact was a shattering defeat for the VC that set them back many, many years. Within a few months of that battle, US Embassy employees could take family vacations in places that had been injun country for years. YET. The VC won the war, unifying their country under a communist regime. Because they were fighting to expel a foreign invader and had indominable will.

The Vietnamese have a tradition in such things.
They repelled Genghis Khan, fer crissakes.

Canada2017 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

The US Army is the second best fighting force on the planet and they are only second because we have the US Marine Corps.

---

The US Army can't succeed in any combat situation without overwhelming air support .

Has been the case for many decades .

---

I would not say any situation. Some yes but there are lots of examples since WW2 of them doing very well without air support.

---

You may have many talents......but a working knowledge of US history certainly isn't one of them .

---

I know more about history than you could ever hope to.

---

Naturally

The fact that one of my double majors as an undergraduate was history ......is of no account .

That my personal library is littered with dozens of history books ....with dozens more permanently lent out ....is of no account .





Regardless my premise remains .

The US army is a joke....has been a joke for decades.

The record clearly shows our ground troops have become incredibly dependent upon overwhelming air supremacy .....and without it they have major issues.

WW2
Korea
Vietnam
Desert Storm


All the same .




Fortunately the Air Force, Navy and Marines remain first rate .

---

People can have lots of books... but it doesn't mean they have read them AND understood them.

People can have degrees because they barely passed the classes but it doesn't mean they know more than someone else with the same degree.

Yes you keep making the same premise but provide zero facts. I have asked for clarification if you are talking about the whole war or just individual battles. Yet you ignore that and just say the same thing.... as if repeating it enough makes it true.

So are you talking the whole war or individual battles?

Because your premise is flawed if you mean the whole war. Since WW2 there have been no wars that have involved the US where all the branches did not participate. There have been few armies that have fought without air power of any kind and been successful.

The Vietnamese won because of politics, lack of support here in the US to continue the war, the strategy carried out (based on politics) and not because of air power, a superior army, etc. Because even during that war there are plenty of examples of the US army fighting a battle against a more numerous enemy, holding their ground and eventually winning. Because the military practice is to use air power there is always air power involved because we don't leave our soldiers to fight without providing air cover.

WW2- Battle of the bulge. One of the most famous battles of the war. Because of weather air power was a minor player for much of the battle. And yet the army performed well. They even broke through the German lines to get to Bastogne when the air power was still minimal.

D-Day.... air power and naval power were largely ineffective.... and the army won.

The break out of the hedgerows.... was mostly the result of the army not air power.

You seem to be acting as if our army can't win without air power but failing to understand our modern military strategy is for them to NOT HAVE to but to rather destroy the enemy with our air power and then have the army or marines come in to finish them off. You make the claim that the ground forces have become dependent on overwhelming air superiority and that is true to an extent because as I have said that is the standard military policy/practice/procedure. When you hit a tough obstacle, strong force, etc. don't' throw troops at it like a Picket's charge/ trenches of WW1/ Russian tactic of WW2, Chinese in Korea but pull back and call in the artillery and air power to blow them up.

There is no separating the two because even the army has air power (attack helicopters) and uses it as part of their main strategy.

---

chuckle

Have never ---ever ----read where you have admitted you were wrong about anything ,

And have zero expectations that you will this time .

But I've got a few minutes to kill.

WW2 the army performed horribly in the Pacific ....marines had to bail them out constantly . Many examples......google is your friend .

In Europe German troops....man for man ...far outclassed our GI's. And most of Germany's best divisions were on the eastern front . Despite all the hype about D-Day ....many of 'Germany's ' troops were in fact former POW's who chose to join the German Army rather than starve to death in the POW camps. Many surrendered the first chance they got.

Even with overwhelming air support and facing some mediocre formations .......it was only massive, concentrated bomber strikes that finally allowed the Allies to break through the hedgerow country .

In Italy, despite overwhelming numbers. naval and air support ...the US army bungled one operation after another . GI's ( black troops in particular ) garnered a notorious reputation for raping Italian women .

Korea....the army performed so badly.....constantly running away ....that British units learned to double check their flanks each evening . If it was a Marine unit.....the British knew they would hold. If an Army unit...the British learned there was at least a 50% chance the GI's would be gone before daylight. BTW the British blamed the US army officers habit of 'leading' from the BACK.

Vietnam.......Drug use, murdering their own officers, refusing to obey orders......all were rampant .

Afghanistan .........nuff said .





OK....times up.


Just declare yourself the 'winner' as usual.................I got to go to the gym .

---

Keep laughing since you know you are wrong.

WW2- there are also many examples of the Army performing very well. Even times when they had to bail out the Marines. Google it.

In Europe you would be right... if talking about soldiers in 1942. In 1944 or 1945 it was the other way around. With the exception of the late war US replacements that were mostly young draftees rushed through with no to little training. But the well trained soldiers/units of mid to late 44 and 45 were much better than the Germans.

Sure many of the "Germans" at the beaches were from Ost units but still the army performed well there and then after. It was the ingenuity of the American GI that put the beach obstacles on the fronts of tanks to break through hedgerows.

Yes the final breakout was started with a massive bombardment.... but you dismiss that the ground forces had pushed forward for a month and a half. Or that the vaunted air force bombed our own soldiers and had to delay a day.

In Italy you highlight the failure of the COMMANDERS not the GI/Army.

Korea- you highlight the early war but ignore the mid to late war when the troops fought much better and pushed the Chinese/Koreans back. That was not just the British and Marines. But also the US army.

Vietnam- also describes the Marines and ignores the many battles where the Army did well.

Afghanistan- no you didn't say anything at all. So clearly not enough said.


You seem to be arguing 2 different points.

One you highlight the failure of leaders (politicians and Generals) and then say that is a failure of the whole army/every single soldier.

Two you pick and choose battles or times during a war to "prove" that the Army was bad but ignore the battles or time of the war they did good, while also ignoring the times the other 3 branches did bad.

whiterock said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

The US Army is the second best fighting force on the planet and they are only second because we have the US Marine Corps.

---

The US Army can't succeed in any combat situation without overwhelming air support .

Has been the case for many decades .

---

I would not say any situation. Some yes but there are lots of examples since WW2 of them doing very well without air support.

---

You may have many talents......but a working knowledge of US history certainly isn't one of them .

---

I know more about history than you could ever hope to.

There are plenty of situations where the US Army has performed well without air support.

But as I said in my post above these days there are almost no battles that take place where it is ONLY ground soldiers fighting with no artillery support, and no air support.

IN Korea there are examples of the Army fighting well.

Same for Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

---

the ability to engage in combined arms warfare is what almost always decides the outcome of conventional warfare. The nations which cannot do it rarely win. And even when both nations can do it, the aim of the war for each side is to degrade the other's ability to do one or more pieces of it. The side which degrades the other first usually wins. You lose air supremacy or naval supremacy, and the logistics of land operations start getting complicated pretty quickly.

NOBODY does combined arms warfare as well as we do.
Saying it's "not even close" understates it.

Vietnam falls into the guerilla war category. VietCong had no aircraft, armor, or navy beyond sampans. They lost almost every engagement, most particularly the Tet Offensive, which was portrayed as a defeat for us in the US media but in fact was a shattering defeat for the VC that set them back many, many years. Within a few months of that battle, US Embassy employees could take family vacations in places that had been injun country for years. YET. The VC won the war, unifying their country under a communist regime. Because they were fighting to expel a foreign invader and had indominable will.

The Vietnamese have a tradition in such things.
They repelled Genghis Khan, fer crissakes.

---

Exactly.

The only forces that do not fight a combined war are those that don't have combined forces. To fault our forces for using the air support they have available is just silly.

The VC were very close to losing the war after Tet/the north and with a more major push by the Americans probably would have.

But again to say the US Army is bad because they call in air support is just silly.

and bonaparte?

anyone? anyone?

- les KKM

I did swing by Les Invalides uncts.