I agree on that, but it isn't what I asked.Canada2017 said:cowboycwr said:Do you still think none of our military leaders believe we could win against Russia?Canada2017 said:Putin has to win to survive .Osodecentx said:What do you think now?Canada2017 said:
So much wishful thinking .
Totally unverified estimates .
Reminds me of Walter Cronkite and his weekly Vietnam War 'body counts ' .
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 .
We have no reason to go to war with Russia .
Period
Russia may have lost up to one-fifth of its combat force in Ukraine
15,983 Views |
197 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by william
When you say win do you mean ground war? and would we be invading Russia? I dont see us winning that one. Who is gonna sign up to go fight that one?cowboycwr said:Do you still think none of our military leaders believe we could win against Russia?Canada2017 said:Putin has to win to survive .Osodecentx said:What do you think now?Canada2017 said:
So much wishful thinking .
Totally unverified estimates .
Reminds me of Walter Cronkite and his weekly Vietnam War 'body counts ' .
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 .
I didn't know wars were only ground or air and not a combination of the two (sarcasm intended). But we are seeing right now that both their air and ground forces are not as good as many believed.muddybrazos said:When you say win do you mean ground war? and would we be invading Russia? I dont see us winning that one. Who is gonna sign up to go fight that one?cowboycwr said:Do you still think none of our military leaders believe we could win against Russia?Canada2017 said:Putin has to win to survive .Osodecentx said:What do you think now?Canada2017 said:
So much wishful thinking .
Totally unverified estimates .
Reminds me of Walter Cronkite and his weekly Vietnam War 'body counts ' .
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 .
Invading- no. IF we ever get into a war with Russia, whether now or 10 years from now or 30 I would think it would be a response to them invading an ally of ours or directly attacking us.
Hopefully 10 or 30 years from now all these warmonger neocon/neolibs are out of our govt. We have no business going to war over a vassal state of Russia that has been Russian territory since the Kievan Rus empire a millennium ago. If Putin invades a Nato country then we do what we have to do but as things stand now we dont need to be stirring up trouble over there.cowboycwr said:I didn't know wars were only ground or air and not a combination of the two (sarcasm intended). But we are seeing right now that both their air and ground forces are not as good as many believed.muddybrazos said:When you say win do you mean ground war? and would we be invading Russia? I dont see us winning that one. Who is gonna sign up to go fight that one?cowboycwr said:Do you still think none of our military leaders believe we could win against Russia?Canada2017 said:Putin has to win to survive .Osodecentx said:What do you think now?Canada2017 said:
So much wishful thinking .
Totally unverified estimates .
Reminds me of Walter Cronkite and his weekly Vietnam War 'body counts ' .
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 .
Invading- no. IF we ever get into a war with Russia, whether now or 10 years from now or 30 I would think it would be a response to them invading an ally of ours or directly attacking us.
If Top Gun was filmed after this disastrous Russian expedition, the producers would need to have Tom Cruise shoot down that MIG with the flash from his Polaroid because no Russian air supremacy fighter would survive getting shot at by F-22.cowboycwr said:I didn't know wars were only ground or air and not a combination of the two (sarcasm intended). But we are seeing right now that both their air and ground forces are not as good as many believed.muddybrazos said:When you say win do you mean ground war? and would we be invading Russia? I dont see us winning that one. Who is gonna sign up to go fight that one?cowboycwr said:Do you still think none of our military leaders believe we could win against Russia?Canada2017 said:Putin has to win to survive .Osodecentx said:What do you think now?Canada2017 said:
So much wishful thinking .
Totally unverified estimates .
Reminds me of Walter Cronkite and his weekly Vietnam War 'body counts ' .
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 .
Invading- no. IF we ever get into a war with Russia, whether now or 10 years from now or 30 I would think it would be a response to them invading an ally of ours or directly attacking us.
cowboycwr said:I agree on that, but it isn't what I asked.Canada2017 said:cowboycwr said:Do you still think none of our military leaders believe we could win against Russia?Canada2017 said:Putin has to win to survive .Osodecentx said:What do you think now?Canada2017 said:
So much wishful thinking .
Totally unverified estimates .
Reminds me of Walter Cronkite and his weekly Vietnam War 'body counts ' .
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 .
We have no reason to go to war with Russia .
Period
A. I believe our military leadership to be little more than useless bureaucrats. Mere 'yes' men only concerned with their benefits and eventual retirements . So don't know or care what they believe .
B. Pointless question because there is no justifiable reason for going to war with Russia in defense of Ukraine. None .
C. The US Navy is first rate as is the Air Force . Unfortunately the army has been emasculated over the years by social experimentation.
Amal Shuq-Up said:If Top Gun was filmed after this disastrous Russian expedition, the producers would need to have Tom Cruise shoot down that MIG with the flash from his Polaroid because no Russian air supremacy fighter would survive getting shot at by F-22.cowboycwr said:I didn't know wars were only ground or air and not a combination of the two (sarcasm intended). But we are seeing right now that both their air and ground forces are not as good as many believed.muddybrazos said:When you say win do you mean ground war? and would we be invading Russia? I dont see us winning that one. Who is gonna sign up to go fight that one?cowboycwr said:Do you still think none of our military leaders believe we could win against Russia?Canada2017 said:Putin has to win to survive .Osodecentx said:What do you think now?Canada2017 said:
So much wishful thinking .
Totally unverified estimates .
Reminds me of Walter Cronkite and his weekly Vietnam War 'body counts ' .
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 .
Invading- no. IF we ever get into a war with Russia, whether now or 10 years from now or 30 I would think it would be a response to them invading an ally of ours or directly attacking us.
Lol they wouldn't survive against what are now ancient F14/15/16s.
One thing that is really clear here; Russian military power is clearly not what it once was.
The US Army is the second best fighting force on the planet and they are only second because we have the US Marine Corps.
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 don't know if that is completely true. It's better-worded to say that the AirLand Battle Doctrine makes excellent use of combat integration.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 .
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
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.
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 .
Oldbear83 said:I don't know if that is completely true. It's better-worded to say that the AirLand Battle Doctrine makes excellent use of combat integration.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 .
Because it is much smarter to fight on land with air support. It's a straight up bald faced insane accusation that the Army can't succeed in any combat situation without overwhelming air support.
The US Army is RIDICULOUSLY good at what it does.
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.
I don't think some folks understand how much training the Army does, and why.nein51 said:Oldbear83 said:I don't know if that is completely true. It's better-worded to say that the AirLand Battle Doctrine makes excellent use of combat integration.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 .
Because it is much smarter to fight on land with air support. It's a straight up bald faced insane accusation that the Army can't succeed in any combat situation without overwhelming air support.
The US Army is RIDICULOUSLY good at what it does.
I saw a man-launched missile shoot down a Sukhoi fighter on video last week. What struck me was that the missile flew for nearly 3 seconds and the plane took no evasive action, flew into the path of the missile like he wasn't aware of the flash or smoke trail at all.
It's like the Russians don't even have simulators.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
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 .
the greatest hero of korea was a mare.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 .
- KKM
arbyscoin - the only crypto you can eat.
Likely a Stinger. They are small, not usually detected by radar, and 3 seconds is an extremely short time for optical detection. Stingers are incredibly effective against low altitude aircraft.Oldbear83 said:I don't think some folks understand how much training the Army does, and why.nein51 said:Oldbear83 said:I don't know if that is completely true. It's better-worded to say that the AirLand Battle Doctrine makes excellent use of combat integration.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 .
Because it is much smarter to fight on land with air support. It's a straight up bald faced insane accusation that the Army can't succeed in any combat situation without overwhelming air support.
The US Army is RIDICULOUSLY good at what it does.
I saw a man-launched missile shoot down a Sukhoi fighter on video last week. What struck me was that the missile flew for nearly 3 seconds and the plane took no evasive action, flew into the path of the missile like he wasn't aware of the flash or smoke trail at all.
It's like the Russians don't even have simulators.
Vietnam was half a century ago, hoss.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 .
We had some actual soldier-types with good ideas and better work ethic rebuild the Army.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Can you imagine what a piece of esss the Chinese ripoffs are? The Russian ripoffs are bad enough. China is next up in the Great Power Self Embarrassment Tour.
ATL Bear said:Likely a Stinger. They are small, not usually detected by radar, and 3 seconds is an extremely short time for optical detection. Stingers are incredibly effective against low altitude aircraft.Oldbear83 said:I don't think some folks understand how much training the Army does, and why.nein51 said:Oldbear83 said:I don't know if that is completely true. It's better-worded to say that the AirLand Battle Doctrine makes excellent use of combat integration.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.
While it could be a Stinger, since we have supplied a lot over there, Poland has also given Ukraine their modern version
The US Army can't succeed in any combat situation without overwhelming air support .
Has been the case for many decades .
Because it is much smarter to fight on land with air support. It's a straight up bald faced insane accusation that the Army can't succeed in any combat situation without overwhelming air support.
The US Army is RIDICULOUSLY good at what it does.
I saw a man-launched missile shoot down a Sukhoi fighter on video last week. What struck me was that the missile flew for nearly 3 seconds and the plane took no evasive action, flew into the path of the missile like he wasn't aware of the flash or smoke trail at all.
It's like the Russians don't even have simulators.
While it could've been a Stinger since a lot are over there, Poland has also given a lot of their version of the Grom which they call it the Piorun. It's just as accurate and lethal as a Stinger.
https://bulgarianmilitary.com/amp/2022/04/06/72mm-piorun-manpads-may-have-shot-down-the-su-35-over-ukraine/?fbclid=IwAR0J-fOzuwWqqjm9T42MEarSvmcGBTJ2SoBH7Eg_fzu5MK-ndXMHhMbkKrU
LOL !Oldbear83 said:Vietnam was half a century ago, hoss.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 .
We had some actual soldier-types with good ideas and better work ethic rebuild the Army.
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 .
Lemme guess, you're ex-USAF?Canada2017 said:LOL !Oldbear83 said:Vietnam was half a century ago, hoss.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 .
We had some actual soldier-types with good ideas and better work ethic rebuild the Army.
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 .
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/military/sd-me-reckless-statue-20161021-htmlstory.htmlwilliam said:the greatest hero of korea was a mare.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 .
- KKM
arbyscoin - the only crypto you can eat.
We had total air superiority in Afghanistan.Canada2017 said:LOL !Oldbear83 said:Vietnam was half a century ago, hoss.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 .
We had some actual soldier-types with good ideas and better work ethic rebuild the Army.
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 .
Yeah, them drones of ours really kicked some ass!!! Unfortunately, mostly children.Osodecentx said:We had total air superiority in Afghanistan.Canada2017 said:LOL !Oldbear83 said:Vietnam was half a century ago, hoss.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 .
We had some actual soldier-types with good ideas and better work ethic rebuild the Army.
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 .
"Stand with anyone when he is right; Stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong." - Abraham Lincoln
Osodecentx said:We had total air superiority in Afghanistan.Canada2017 said:LOL !Oldbear83 said:Vietnam was half a century ago, hoss.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 .
We had some actual soldier-types with good ideas and better work ethic rebuild the Army.
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 .
Yeah. It covered our incredibly disorganized, feckless and idiotic retreat. Oh, and we failed to use it AT ALL to support our allies against a marauding 7th century barbarian horde.
We could have held that space forever if we wanted to. Some of you are seriously conflating political decisions with military capabilities.Canon said:Yeah. It covered our incredibly disorganized, feckless and idiotic retreat. Oh, and we failed to use it AT ALL to support our allies against a marauding 7th century barbarian horde.Osodecentx said:We had total air superiority in Afghanistan.Canada2017 said:LOL !Oldbear83 said:Vietnam was half a century ago, hoss.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 .
We had some actual soldier-types with good ideas and better work ethic rebuild the Army.
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 .
Of course........and it still didn't matter.Osodecentx said:We had total air superiority in Afghanistan.Canada2017 said:LOL !Oldbear83 said:Vietnam was half a century ago, hoss.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 .
We had some actual soldier-types with good ideas and better work ethic rebuild the Army.
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 .
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 ArmyCanada2017 said:Of course........and it still didn't matter.Osodecentx said:We had total air superiority in Afghanistan.Canada2017 said:LOL !Oldbear83 said:Vietnam was half a century ago, hoss.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 .
We had some actual soldier-types with good ideas and better work ethic rebuild the Army.
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 .
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.
One thing I think gets missed in these discussions, is that there are a lot of factors which need to be considered when planning for military conflicts and strategy.
The US military, for example, has a very long logistics train to get men, weapons and supplies to Ukraine, and there would be ample opportunity for the 'inferior' Russian forces to mess up that supply chain.
Also, not every weapon on the 'cool stuff' shelf would be ideal for Eastern Europe, nor are our forces likely to have wargamed repelling a prolonged Russian of Ukraine.
The US military, for example, has a very long logistics train to get men, weapons and supplies to Ukraine, and there would be ample opportunity for the 'inferior' Russian forces to mess up that supply chain.
Also, not every weapon on the 'cool stuff' shelf would be ideal for Eastern Europe, nor are our forces likely to have wargamed repelling a prolonged Russian of Ukraine.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
I agree. I am not calling for war. I was merely trying to speak in the hypothetical of if we got in a war with Russia. Not the specifics of why the hypothetical war is fought, started, etc.muddybrazos said:Hopefully 10 or 30 years from now all these warmonger neocon/neolibs are out of our govt. We have no business going to war over a vassal state of Russia that has been Russian territory since the Kievan Rus empire a millennium ago. If Putin invades a Nato country then we do what we have to do but as things stand now we dont need to be stirring up trouble over there.cowboycwr said:I didn't know wars were only ground or air and not a combination of the two (sarcasm intended). But we are seeing right now that both their air and ground forces are not as good as many believed.muddybrazos said:When you say win do you mean ground war? and would we be invading Russia? I dont see us winning that one. Who is gonna sign up to go fight that one?cowboycwr said:Do you still think none of our military leaders believe we could win against Russia?Canada2017 said:Putin has to win to survive .Osodecentx said:What do you think now?Canada2017 said:
So much wishful thinking .
Totally unverified estimates .
Reminds me of Walter Cronkite and his weekly Vietnam War 'body counts ' .
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 .
Invading- no. IF we ever get into a war with Russia, whether now or 10 years from now or 30 I would think it would be a response to them invading an ally of ours or directly attacking us.
A. Lies. You claimed to know that none of our military leaders thought we could win a war against Russia.Canada2017 said:cowboycwr said:I agree on that, but it isn't what I asked.Canada2017 said:cowboycwr said:Do you still think none of our military leaders believe we could win against Russia?Canada2017 said:Putin has to win to survive .Osodecentx said:What do you think now?Canada2017 said:
So much wishful thinking .
Totally unverified estimates .
Reminds me of Walter Cronkite and his weekly Vietnam War 'body counts ' .
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 .
We have no reason to go to war with Russia .
Period
A. I believe our military leadership to be little more than useless bureaucrats. Mere 'yes' men only concerned with their benefits and eventual retirements . So don't know or care what they believe .
B. Pointless question because there is no justifiable reason for going to war with Russia in defense of Ukraine. None .
C. The US Navy is first rate as is the Air Force . Unfortunately the army has been emasculated over the years by social experimentation.
B. I did not ask about going to war over Ukraine. I asked if you still believed that none of our top military leaders thought we could win against Russia. In any hypothetical war. Top military planners constantly prepare for lots of hypothetical situations all the time and carry out "war games" to practice them. That is all I am discussing. The point of our military leaders thinking we COULD win IF we went to war with Russia- for whatever reason. Not the specifics of THIS incident in Ukraine.
C. I agree the army has been the branch hit the hardest by social justice/wokeness.
I would not say any situation. Some yes but there are lots of examples since WW2 of them doing very well without air support.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 .
You seem to be confusing the ABILITY of the army with the PLANNING/POLITICS behind the scenes.Canada2017 said:LOL !Oldbear83 said:Vietnam was half a century ago, hoss.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 .
We had some actual soldier-types with good ideas and better work ethic rebuild the Army.
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 .
Think about all the conflicts you mentioned. WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Desert Storm, Panama, Grenada, etc. The US army often was in fights against superior numbers but the outnumbered soldiers fought them off and won.
Afghanistan, Vietnam, and Iraq were plagued by politicians making military decisions, turning soldiers into police, trying to create "green zones" inside cities, buy off the local population to support us, etc. that just did not work and resulted in deaths, distaste for the war at home and eventual pullout of the country.