What about Joe?

[nomadpete]

"The Americans are big on huge Armed Force shows, but they're prime targets for guerilla tactics - and have been, since WW1." 

 

Further to Onetrack's comment above, has anyone read Colonel Hackworth's  book, "About Face"?

 

He got into a lot of trouble in Viet Nam for sending his sergeants to spend time with Aussies because the US jungle training was done either in snow country or deserts. They had no idea how to deal with the 'informal' nature of the war, no idea how to stay alive in a jungle!

It's the only war book I've really enjoyed, particularly because of the connection with Australia.  After being discredited by the US military (because he spoke out publicly against the Viet Nam war), he escaped to Australia.

Edited January 19, 2021 by nomadpete
Should have proof read before posting

[Old Koreelah]

Let’s hope we don’t find out.

[spacesailor]

.AND 

The Australian soldiers sent to New Zealand, in winter for training.

Three froze to death, . Dressed in Aussie uniforms.

Didn,t any one tell them,

IT,S BLOOODI COLD

spacesailor

[old man emu]

42 minutes ago, willedoo said:

they realized they could never out man or out gun the U.S., so their forces were designed to be highly mobile and effective. Move quick, strike the soft underbelly, then withdraw leaving the enemy shadowboxing

And they taught the North Vietnamese, so the Yanks lost out there. They taught the Afghans, so the Yanks lost out there. They taught the Iraqis, so the Yanks lost out there. We tried to teach the Yanks how to fight that way, but we lost out there.

 

I wonder if China sees any value in mounting military action outside its borders. There have been reports in forums here suggesting that they have been building up their sea-going capacity in all forms of shipping, but what benefits would China gain from an expansionist military effort? Wars are fought to secure trade links, or to spread an ideology. It's probable that China sees no profit in converting other nations to its political and social ideologies. It has shown that it can improve the lot of its people by vigorously developing trade links. Why send your people to die to gain raw materials when you can get your people to generate the money for he country to outbid competitors for the raw materials?

[onetrack]

We weren't exactly up to scratch in the early part of WW2, either. The blokes sent to New Guinea were largely raw young rookies with 3 weeks training, and no jungle warfare equipment.

They got sent out on the Kokoda Trail with 6 days rations and 50 rounds of ammo - to take on a force of Japs three to five times their number, and well-armed with artillery pieces.

 

Bill Grayden is one of our local retired MP's, he was 100 last August, and he survived the new Guinea campaign without a scratch - and he tells the story of Kokoda first hand, below.

 

https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/blog/bill-grayden-and-kokoda

[willedoo]

3 minutes ago, old man emu said:

And they taught the North Vietnamese, so the Yanks lost out there. They taught the Afghans, so the Yanks lost out there. They taught the Iraqis, so the Yanks lost out there. We tried to teach the Yanks how to fight that way, but we lost out there.

Good point ome, I've never really thought about it that way.

 

As far as the Chinese and their navy is concerned, my best guess is that the force will be designed mainly to stop anyone contesting their claim on the South China Sea.

[onetrack]

The Chinese are brave, gung-ho, and fanatical fighters, and the Aussies came up against them in Nth Korea in 1951-53. They threw themselves against the machine guns of the Aussies in human wave after human wave, until the bodies were piled several high.

The Aussie troops couldn't believe their fanaticism, and the way their numbers just kept coming. They all thought the Chinese would overrun them via sheer force of numbers, but the MG's stopped them.

I'm not so sure that the same thing would happen again, the Communist doctrine has been watered down since the Korean War, and the Chinese are better educated today.

[willedoo]

3 minutes ago, onetrack said:

We weren't exactly up to scratch in the early part of WW2, either. The blokes sent to New Guinea were largely raw young rookies with 3 weeks training, and no jungle warfare equipment.

They got sent out on the Kokoda Trail with 6 days rations and 50 rounds of ammo - to take on a force of Japs three to five times their number, and well-armed with artillery pieces.

 

Bill Grayden is one of our local retired MP's, he was 100 last August, and he survived the new Guinea campaign without a scratch - and he tells the story of Kokoda first hand, below.

 

https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/blog/bill-grayden-and-kokoda

The title of that Peter Brune book, 'Those Ragged Bloody Heroes' is  a good description.

[nomadpete]

My father served on the big guns in Bougainville and a few others. None of his group died there but they 'had their moments'. His main recollection of the American participation was that they would bring a big battleship to an  occupied island, spend a day shelling it until there was hardly a tree left standing, then declare the island 'taken', and depart. They then sent the Aussies in on land to 'mop up'. About then, the Japs would come out of their bunkers and set up their MG's to greet us. He always held a deep distaste for Americans after that.

[nomadpete]

As far as China's military might goes, I'd suggest that regardless of whether they could hypothetically outgun USA or Russia, it is a more frightening deterrent than the USA's. Because it gives them greater negotiating clout (intimidation) in the trade war that they are running.

[willedoo]

Sleepy Joe has hit the ground running and signed a few executive orders on his first day. He's signed orders to end funding for the border wall, to reverse the Muslim travel ban, to reenter the WHO, rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement and repeal the approval of the Keystone pipeline.

 

I've been reading the comments of the Russian Ambassador to the US and they sound fairly optimistic of establishing reasonable dialogue. They've already worked with a lot of Biden's appointees in the former Obama administration. First on the agenda will be whether or not Biden will extend the New START nuclear treaty. Trump has already abandoned the mid range nuclear treaty and open skies agreement causing Russia to pull out as well. Signs from the Biden camp are that Biden wants to extend new START.

 

It's looking like adults are back in the White House.

[willedoo]

Here's a thought about Joe Biden. Presidents are usually judged by a combination of their words and action. George W wasn't good with words, so Bush was judged mainly on his actions. Obama was partly judged on actions, but most people's opinion of him was based on his eloquent speech and words. He was the sort of bloke that could sell you the Barbour Bridge. Joe Biden, like Bush, is not good at words so action is really all he has up his sleeve to make an impression. So will Biden be a President of action? If not, he won't have much legacy to leave.

[Bruce Tuncks]

For most of my life, the US outspent the rest of the world put together on military. This was never told to me, I always thought Russia had as big if not a bigger army.

And I was never told that the USSR was actually the Russian empire, and they needed their army to be free to put down rebellious provinces.

The same is true, on a smaller scale, for the Javanese empire to our north.

[willedoo]

Biden has agreed with the Russians to extend the New START nuclear arms reduction treaty to another five years. It was due to expire next week and under Trump, there was doubt the Americans would agree to extend it. Trump was wanting new preconditions whereas the Russians were wanting to extend in it's original form. Biden, on the other hand, has agreed with the Russian proposal. A legacy of the Obama administration, the treaty limits each country to 1,550 deployed warheads, 800 launchers and 700 deployed missiles and bombers.

 

The issue behind Trump's wariness is that Russia, for the first time since the Cold War began, has strategic nuclear superiority over the U.S. due to it's successful deployment of hypersonic weapons. The U.S. has struggled to catch up with their hypersonic development programme and currently have nothing that can shoot down the Russian hypersonic nukes. Trump was playing a dangerous and possibly dumb game. He naively thought the Russians would agree to his demands and renew the treaty with new conditions, but why would they if they have the upper hand and hold all the bargaining chips.

 

Biden didn't have much choice but to agree with the Russians to an unchanged extension. At least that way, the Russians are bound by the treaty for five years and the U.S. has the same time frame to catch up with hypersonic technology and return to parity. Meanwhile, Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov has warned the U.S. against any destructive action or attempts to undermine Russia’s national security, saying that it could lead to Moscow withdrawing from the treaty. Most likely just political hot air from Ryabkov.

[Marty_d]

I find it amazing that the US is behind Russia when it comes to hypersonic flight.  The country that built the X-15 and the SR-71 - both around 60 years ago for chrissakes!

[Bruce Tuncks]

And I find it incredible that Russia has about the same military budget as Australia. Makes me suspicious that the Russians have employed some creative accounting.

[red750]

Joe might not turn out to be the greatest president, but at least we don't have to listen to him constantly telling us how great/clever/rich he is.

[willedoo]

15 hours ago, Marty_d said:

I find it amazing that the US is behind Russia when it comes to hypersonic flight.  The country that built the X-15 and the SR-71 - both around 60 years ago for chrissakes

They dropped the ball on hypersonic flight. Russia is the current leader in the field but China is not far behind. I could be wrong, but I think a lot of the problem with the American programme is R & D cuts over the years. The more they get involved in maintaining expensive active wars, the more they have to cut their research to pay for it. If Congress have wars to fund, they would be less inclined to pass bills for funding projects for the future. Having said that, I think the penny has finally dropped and we'll see soon see them catch up fairly quickly.

4 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

And I find it incredible that Russia has about the same military budget as Australia. Makes me suspicious that the Russians have employed some creative accounting.

We are around 40 billion and Russia about 65 billion; the U.S. well over 700 billion. Russia has spent most of their big budgets a few years back when oil revenue was high. Now that their defence upgrades are getting up to date, they can just tick along on a smaller budget. Even though they are the second biggest conventional power, they do almost everything a lot cheaper than the Americans. As an example, Russian infantry troops have only had socks and hot showers for the last 3 or 4 years. Before that it was WW2 style foot wraps and a splash bath. Another example is that they get a lot less leave than the Americans, so need a lot less personnel. Life in the U.S. military is relatively comfortable (at a cost), whereas in Russia it's not much fun.

 

The Yanks run a huge show on a big budget. Just their eleven carrier groups would cost a fortune on it's own. The Americans have almost 200,000 troops in 150 countries around the globe compared to Russia having a small presence in 11 countries. The Russians have the luxury of spending most of their defence budget on true defence in their own country, whereas the U.S. has to pay the price for being the World's Sheriff. It doesn't leave them much for R & D and planning for the future. From where I look at it the problem must be somewhere. The only players are the Government, the Pentagon and the Congress who authorize or reject the spending bills. So it must be one or a combination of them stuffing up.

 

The Americans have a lot of problems coming up in the next few years. They have a lot of gear but a big percentage of it is near it's use by date. Maintenance and repair down time is increasing which is reducing their fighting capability.

 

 

Edited January 29, 2021 by willedoo

[pmccarthy]

I just watched a video about the Yanks paid 16Billion for a failed helicopter programmme, that was supposed to replace Marine One, presidential flight. They spent the money and still don’t have the helicopters.

[willedoo]

39 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

I just watched a video about the Yanks paid 16Billion for a failed helicopter programmme, that was supposed to replace Marine One, presidential flight. They spent the money and still don’t have the helicopters.

The procurement programme seems to throw a lot of money down the drain. Enough's been already said about the F-35, but in areas like ship building, they seem to be continually having stuff ups. They've recently done an upgrade on the Abrams tank and a DOD evaluation report says it's too heavy for tactical bridges, road transport and recovery equipment. The original early model Abrams were 58 tons fully loaded and the new upgrade is 73 tons. It performs well if it doesn't have to go anywhere. They seem to have problems like this continually and I suspect their show has just got too big for proper oversight.

Edited January 29, 2021 by willedoo

[pmccarthy]

I know people who work for Thales on the Hawkei in Bendigo and it seems the stuff ups continue here as well.

[onetrack]

The Abrams weight stuff-up is amazing. That's exactly the problem the Americans had during WW2, the Grants and Shermans were too heavy for most infrastructure, even in America.

When they got to outlying places, they had to float tanks across rivers on barges, or on Engineer pontoon bridges. 

 

I can recall when the AMF shipped a pile of new Grants to W.A. in 1943, the rail line between Perth and Kalgoorlie collapsed and derailed a pile of flatbed rail trucks, with the tanks on.

Fortunately, you can't damage a tank much - but it took them weeks to repair the rail line.

 

I used to do a bit of U.S. military surplus equipment buying. They had a setup called DRMO (Defense Re-utilisation Marketing Offices). These were run by the DRMS (Defense Re-utilisation Marketing Service).

These offices sold off anything they decided the military no longer needed, or was obsolete, or was "uneconomic to repair". 

The DRMO has given way to DLA Disposition Services. They utilise a private business to handle all the surplus sales now - GovPlanet, run by Richie Bros, the global equipment auctioneers (originally Canadian).

 

The equipment presented for disposal by the military via DRMS was eye-opening. Large numbers of expensive items of earthmoving equipment that had been parked up for years, and just neglected, until it was deemed UTR.

Dozers that were 20 years old and with only a few hundred hours on the clock - big front end loaders, the same (mostly with all tyres flat, and ruined, because no-one had ever been tasked to keep them inflated).

Big forklifts the same, used and abused, with very few hours on the clock. I bought a large Cat forklift from the USN, out of Sagamihira in Japan. It had done less than 1000 hrs, even though it was 16 yrs old.

 

But the engine (a 4 cyl Perkins diesel) wouldn't run, so they deemed it UTR. When I got it, I found the engine intake was totally blocked with a huge rats nest (even Customs and Quarantine didn't find it, I must admit).

I stripped the engine down and rebuilt it with an engine kit (pistons, rings, liners, bearings), but it could've been repaired more cheaply if I wanted to, it really had little wear in it.

 

The rest of the forklift was as-new. I sold it to the brother, who sold it to his son after the brother retired, and it still performs admirably today - nearly 20 years on. I paid $2700 for it, another $6000 to land it here - and about $2500 in repairs.

But it was a $40,000 forklift when it was running - over 10 tonnes in tare, diesel-powered, dual drive wheels, automatic, 5.5M lift height, automatic fork tyne positioners, fork tyne sideshift - it was the Rolls Royce of forklifts.

Yet the U.S. military deemed it scrap, because no-one maintained it, no-one even cared enough to find out what was wrong with it, and they were happy enough to sell it for scrap price, because there would be a new one waiting for them.

 

There would be thousands upon thousands of items of equipment like this in the U.S. military stocks. They simply waste money on an industrial scale with poor maintenance, and "she's a big firm" mentality.

 

[willedoo]

The Americans sold a heap of Abrams tanks to the Iraqi military, but some of their units are now replacing them with Russian T-90's. Main reason is the Abrams turbine is more expensive to maintain in the dusty conditions with a lot more downtime than the diesel T-90. Plus the T-90 is well under 50 tons.

 

The reverse has happened in Afghanistan. The Americans bought the Afghan government a heap of Mi-17 helos some years back because they were best suited to the high altitude work and dusty, rugged conditions. Now, as they need replacing or refurbishing, the Americans are trying to make them take Blackhawks. The Afghans are not happy chappies as they can't do with them what they can do with a Mi-17.

[willedoo]

Good to see that Joe's not letting those bombs go rusty. It took him 36 days of his presidency to get warmed up, but he's finally bombed Syria. And on the same day that he canned the proposed $15 per hour minimal wage back home. Go Joe.

[nomadpete]

It's looking like the good old days are back!

 

Methinks this will not end well.