Would the world be better off if the U.S.
Jul 25th 2013, 8:49 pm
#46
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jun 2008
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 10,678
Re: Would the world be better off if the U.S.
The the number of men in a countries armed forces is not the key to winning battles but it a key to occupying a country. The US can probably win just about any battle but probably doesn't have enough troops to occupy a country. Following WWII, the US left more troops in Germany and Japan to occupy those countries than is in all branches in the military today.
Last edited by Michael; Jul 25th 2013 at 9:04 pm.
Jul 25th 2013, 9:31 pm
#47
Joined: Dec 2001
Location: Dixie, ex UK
Posts: 52,448
Re: Would the world be better off if the U.S.
No one's is compared to the US in spending.
However the Chinese could throw and lose a million conscripts a day into an attritional war and still be going long after the US has exhausted its manpower. Some would say that that is evened out by the US tech advantage, and to an extent it is, however planes and tech ultimately cannot be rebuilt, nor experienced soldiers replaced, very quickly. And so it becomes a numbers game.
In a numbers games there's only one winner.
However the Chinese could throw and lose a million conscripts a day into an attritional war and still be going long after the US has exhausted its manpower. Some would say that that is evened out by the US tech advantage, and to an extent it is, however planes and tech ultimately cannot be rebuilt, nor experienced soldiers replaced, very quickly. And so it becomes a numbers game.
In a numbers games there's only one winner.
Of course the roles would be reversed if China were to try to invade Siberia, but merely throwing more and more lightly armed infantry at a well armed and dug in opponent is only going to create an ever larger pile of bodies.
Last edited by Pulaski; Jul 25th 2013 at 9:38 pm.
Jul 25th 2013, 10:06 pm
#48
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jun 2008
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 10,678
Re: Would the world be better off if the U.S.
That is not necessarily true. Saddam Hussain had large numbers of troops dug in on the Kuwait-Saudi border in early 1992, but American and British troops pushed through using ACE's and tank ploughs with close to zero losses. Later in the same war there was one of the most one-sided attacks ever seen as American and British aircraft utterly destroyed the retreating column of Iraqi vehicles on the road to Basra. Numbers were no match for Apaches, A10s, and Harriers.
Of course the roles would be reversed if China were to try to invade Siberia, but merely throwing more and more lightly armed infantry at a well armed and dug in opponent is only going to create an ever larger pile of bodies.
Of course the roles would be reversed if China were to try to invade Siberia, but merely throwing more and more lightly armed infantry at a well armed and dug in opponent is only going to create an ever larger pile of bodies.
Last edited by Michael; Jul 25th 2013 at 10:10 pm.
Jul 25th 2013, 10:19 pm
#49
Joined: Dec 2001
Location: Dixie, ex UK
Posts: 52,448
Re: Would the world be better off if the U.S.
Jul 28th 2013, 12:08 pm
#50
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2002
Location: Richmond Hill, Ga (ex Birmingham UK)
Posts: 490
Re: Would the world be better off if the U.S.
Just to add to the stats on here, given that the USA (obviously) has the largest Air Force - which country has the 2nd largest ?
Jul 28th 2013, 12:14 pm
#51
Often not so civil...
Joined: Apr 2010
Location: The Boonies, GA
Posts: 9,561
Re: Would the world be better off if the U.S.
Depends what you mean by 'Air Force'
If we're talking purely about strike aircraft, then it's China. If we're talking about 'things that can fly' then it's Russia. Both have around 1/3 of the strike aircraft of the US.
If we're talking purely about strike aircraft, then it's China. If we're talking about 'things that can fly' then it's Russia. Both have around 1/3 of the strike aircraft of the US.
Last edited by civilservant; Jul 28th 2013 at 12:17 pm.
