Nidan1 Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 Regarding the draft. It can be a double edged sword. The Viet-Nam experience and aftermath was not something the military or public in general wants to repeat. On the other hand some sort of univesal service would be useful, especially in light of how society and some of the institutions have evolved. We recently hired a few new people-after years of downsizing. Some were ex-military who served in recent conflicts. Given a preference I would hire more. They just seem to be more togther and actually show up on time and are overall easier to train and manage. Yes I know you have screw ups in the military that will not amount to anything once they get out, but you can often weed that out in the interviewing and hiring process. The fact they went through something that held you accountable, responsible for your actions and other intangible factors that seem to be lacking in many of todays youth, raised in such a permissive and non-accountable environment. That is someting very foreign to my generation. There are tons of articles about the new genearation and the issues they are causing in the workforce. if you are lucky enough to land a job with the new, hip social media companies that will cater the ways of the Millennial Generation, then more power to you-but I can assure that in time most will be out of business once they run out of other's people money to burn through. Perhaps something long the lines of universal service, but 2 distinct forces-one a volunteer component with looser rules of deployment and usage and the conscripted component who would only be deployed to clearly defined areas of national interest. I would give the volunteer component higher pay and other perks to make it more attractive. We should also just copy the British and raise a few Gurkha Batallions. Contrary to the general understanding, a very small percentage of men who served in Vietnam were draftees. In fact a draftee was more likely not to be sent to Vietnam because 2 years did not allow enough time for training and then the one year or 13 month tour in Vietnam. Also I would not be too quick to dismiss the younger generation because they are the ones volunteering for the military and fighting our wars. The make up of the US military today also ensures that older, more settled men and women can serve on a combat deployment. Most large formations are filled out by reserve and National Guard components, made up mostly of older (not 18 and 19 year olds) people who have a standing in civilian life as well as a career in the military. There is no doubt however that serving in the military provides a person with skills and experience that are invaluable in the civilian workforce. I dont think there are enough Gurkhas to go around 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nidan1 Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 We can stray off the reservation from time to time. The French Revolution inaugurated the national levee en masse in modern times. However the British acquired their 19th century empire with a largely volunteer army. The tendency toward universal conscription accelerated with WW1 and thereafter. With national conscripted armies you get mutinies but rarely revolutions. The conscript considers himself a citizen. In the US you see a metastasizing of government on all levels. Unionized Police forces are acquiring heavy weapons. And the cops are now highly payed and endowed with lavish pensions. Are we seeing a caste in larval form? Presidents- not just the present one- haves arrogated to themselves unusual powers as the middle class shrinks. Elite sectors seek to disarm the rest of us. After the 2nd century Roman citizens gradually lost the right to bear arms. A two tier judicial system (honestiores and humiliores- look them up) emerged that bore down on the middle class and below. Emperors competed to overpay (bribe) the legionaries. So, yes, I see dangers. Sorry for the controversy. Unfortunately we have a form of governing in place that today is inherently corrupt. Our representatives do not put their full energy into serving all of their constituents, but rather seek to please wealthy donors, lobbyists and special interest groups which can afford to put big bucks into the politicians coffers. There is no rush to reform any of these situations because the pols do not want to cut off the major sources of their funding. Therefore our so-called Lawmakers spend their energy and influence to please small sections of the population, while the issues raised by the majority of Americans are ignored, or worse pay lip service. The framers recognized how this situation could lead to a paralyzed government and they chose to compromise on the seperation of powers. Madison was concerned with how legislators would be seduced by the power and influence of small groups with big purses. He called it "the violence of Factions" Could this kind of governing lead to a situation where the populace is so fed up with the way things are done or not done, that they would turn their backs while a military takeover took place. You would want to think that it is unlikely. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db_zero Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 (edited) Contrary to the general understanding, a very small percentage of men who served in Vietnam were draftees. In fact a draftee was more likely not to be sent to Vietnam because 2 years did not allow enough time for training and then the one year or 13 month tour in Vietnam. Also I would not be too quick to dismiss the younger generation because they are the ones volunteering for the military and fighting our wars. The make up of the US military today also ensures that older, more settled men and women can serve on a combat deployment. Most large formations are filled out by reserve and National Guard components, made up mostly of older (not 18 and 19 year olds) people who have a standing in civilian life as well as a career in the military. There is no doubt however that serving in the military provides a person with skills and experience that are invaluable in the civilian workforce. I dont think there are enough Gurkhas to go around I agree there are some very fine young 18, 19 and 20 somethings who are fine individuals doing great things, but there is a sense of fustration with many that has crept up into the consciousness and that is not without cause. That's a whole different topic that is way beyond the scope of this discussion. If you get a chance take a look at this from the 70's right after the Viet-Nam War. I still remember looking through this. If you get a chance to actually read what's in it, it will be an eye opener: https://www.google.com/search?q=life+magazine-the+new+army&biw=1680&bih=949&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=4-4FVZa3IpH0oAT544AI&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg#tbm=isch&q=The+New+Army+Life+Magazine&imgdii=_&imgrc=MymWhMsUwqCtGM%253A%3BpoQoXFO4KjH2UM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252F2neatmagazines.com%252FLife-Magazine-Covers%252F1971%252FLife-Magazine-1971-02-05.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252F2neatmagazines.com%252Flife%252F1971.html%3B360%3B480 Edited March 15, 2015 by db_zero 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db_zero Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 Unfortunately we have a form of governing in place that today is inherently corrupt. Our representatives do not put their full energy into serving all of their constituents, but rather seek to please wealthy donors, lobbyists and special interest groups which can afford to put big bucks into the politicians coffers. There is no rush to reform any of these situations because the pols do not want to cut off the major sources of their funding. Therefore our so-called Lawmakers spend their energy and influence to please small sections of the population, while the issues raised by the majority of Americans are ignored, or worse pay lip service. The framers recognized how this situation could lead to a paralyzed government and they chose to compromise on the seperation of powers. Madison was concerned with how legislators would be seduced by the power and influence of small groups with big purses. He called it "the violence of Factions" Could this kind of governing lead to a situation where the populace is so fed up with the way things are done or not done, that they would turn their backs while a military takeover took place. You would want to think that it is unlikely. Corrupt politicians? Never. That only happens in other countries and the third world: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130416/08344222725/congress-quickly-quietly-rolls-back-insider-trading-rules-itself.shtml 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nidan1 Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 Corrupt politicians? Never. That only happens in other countries and the third world: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130416/08344222725/congress-quickly-quietly-rolls-back-insider-trading-rules-itself.shtml Maybe a coup is not so farfetched? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeCK Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 (edited) @Vladimir, I'm sure the Russian army has some quality computer training equipment. From what I understand, they are trying to build a more highly trained army in general and I certainly wasn't trying to be disparaging....but as I stated and was reinforced by another poster, M1 tank crewman have extensive time in service...usually around 4 years each. During this time they are constantly training with other branches and units against OPFOR which is trained in Russian or Chinese tactics. You simply cannot get the same quality crew from conscripts who only spend 1-2 years in service. The E-6 staff Sergeant who commands the tank probably has 8-9 years in service...all driving and fighting tanks. Volunteer armies are far more expensive than conscript but the quality you get due to the length of service is immeasurable. My point is that no one can say t-90 vs M1 as a scenario. I don't think any russian general would plan for a situation where the enemy had as many tanks as he did. The idea is to produce cheaper tanks and greater numbers. The T-90 is a great tank, it just isn't meant to be of the same quality as western tanks nor is it crewed by the same experienced soldiers The U.S. did for logistics what the Germans did for armored warfare. The US can operate the M1 in large numbers because the U.S. can carry a long logistical tail and trains a lot in doing so. The T-90 is a much better choice for any army that simply does not have or chooses not to have that logistical capability. Both tanks were created with different abilities in mind. The T-72, 80 and 90 were not designed to fight 1v1 The Russiana are certainly capable of innovation. The Mig-15 tore the hell out of American fighters in Korea and the F-86 saber was designed using the Russian innovation in swept wing design. The S-400 SAM system is an amazing weapon system and far surpasses anything the west has. So I'm not saying the Russians can't build a tank as good as the western tanks...just that it chooses not to for a number of factors Edited March 15, 2015 by mikeCK 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db_zero Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 Maybe a coup is not so farfetched? naw. We have reality TV, the internet and government assistance to keep the masses occupied. I can forsee the Balkanization of America. Some are saying we're seeing it now with communities based on shared political, cultural and voting beliefs sprouting up. Throw in changing demographics, birth rates, aging population, debt, open borders, terrorism, reliance on high speed data netwroks and hackers and it all makes the simpler days of the Cold War, when there were just 2 sides seem so quaint. Guess the end of the Cold War didn't bring about peace, love and a more simple world. Well I guess the bright side is when all comes to pass I'll be dead or too old to care. For now I know 1 thing for sure. America has the most powerful currency in the world. The dollar is the reigning king for now! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pablius Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 I´m from Argentina and I can tell you that having a conscript army didn´t prevent a single military coup in the 20th century (if you really want to look at it, start with the first coup in the modern sense in 1930 and laugh or cry your way to the last one in 1976-83 and every other folly in between) Latin America in general experienced long decades of high levels of political instability from local an foreign factors, coups were common occurrences, having conscript units didn´t prevent Generals to turn the Army into a de facto occupation force on it`s own soil, enough NCOs and low and mid level officers went along just fine with every crime and atrocity committed for various reasons, too long to go into in this thread We now have a volunteer armed forces, there`s no more conscription since the early 90s and the probability of a military coup has never been lower than in the last hundred years There are social, economical and political considerations for or against one model or the other, but I would venture to say that the composition of the armed forces is a relatively small factor on the odds of a constitutional breakdown, at least in modern times I would put more value on universal civic education, general awareness of civic and political rights, the ability of civilian political entities of managing internal conflict, etc. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeFF Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 What was this thread about again? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db_zero Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 What was this thread about again? This was about a T-90 tank that was cruising down the highway took a turn off onto a different path for a few miles then took another turn down a different path and has now become bogged down and lost. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Not sure about pensions, but the median annual income for a police officer in the US is about 52 thousand a year. That's not bad but no one's getting rich off it. No but they are getting.rich on.the overtime, traffic.details, and other things.., 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nidan1 Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 What was this thread about again? One can never tell what might happen to a thread started by John Kettler (Sorry John, I know you hate emoticons) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeFF Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 One can never tell what might happen to a thread started by John Kettler (Sorry John, I know you hate emoticons) Oh, so true. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeCK Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 No but they are getting.rich on.the overtime, traffic.details, and other things.., Lol...I've been a cop for 14 years and neither me or anyone I worked with got rich. Yeah, some made $90,000 a year...by working about 60 hours a week every week on details and overtime. That's hardly rich. I am comfortable and have a good pension, all I ask for 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 (edited) The base salary for police officers here in CA is 58K. Many retire in their 50s or earlier with 70% of their base pay. What's really killing the state are the pensions not just the police but teachers, prison guards, etc. Much of the blame adheres to ex-Governor Gray Davis. Public schools have become holding pens for bored or tumultuous kids. Outside districts like Beverly Hills or other premium areas they learn little. At least the cops contribute to the general welfare. And unlike public school teachers they can be fired. A public sector union is a misnomer. They don't aspire to divvy up the profits generated by business activities like normal unions. They prefer to glom on to the public fisc. They're actually lobbies. (Thank you, JFK) Edited March 16, 2015 by Childress 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeFF Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 So, a T-90 is stopped by a traffic officer and... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 So my sabot was pretty much a stop-stick for tank speed traps? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 (edited) Lol...I've been a cop for 14 years and neither me or anyone I worked with got rich. Yeah, some made $90,000 a year...by working about 60 hours a week every week on details and overtime. That's hardly rich. I am comfortable and have a good pension, all I ask for Well look up.the scandals.over.traffic details and money paid for nothing.to.law enforcement and probation officers etc. In.boston.and.massachusetts. maybe where.you.live theres cops who dont sit there.playing.on.there fones.doing.traffic details and loads.of.drugs.going.missing from.evidence lockers, and.maybe where you live u guys didnt do.what.cops.dod when.i was a kid.here - do you want an arrest or a.beating? We always took.tbe beatings. Btw.cops.may be a.necessary evil but as someone.whose been.to prison i cant stand you bastards. Nothin.personal. i think the problem.is truly.that the corrections industry is just that an industry a business.and nothing.is done.to.change or help change, instead prisons.are built and just become.criminal universities, if.you think.law.enforcement and the corrections.indistry.work.then.look.at.therecidivism rate. Ive lived it. Excuse.the grammar im.typing.this.on a.cell phone on a packed.bus Edited March 16, 2015 by Sublime 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 So, a T-90 is stopped by a traffic officer and... ...says, 'Komrad! Can I come to Amerka and work in government? With green card?' 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeFF Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Well look up.the scandals.over.traffic details and money paid for nothing.to.law enforcement and probation officers etc. In.boston.and.massachusetts. maybe where.you.live theres cops who dont sit there.playing.on.there fones.doing.traffic details and loads.of.drugs.going.missing from.evidence lockers, and.maybe where you live u guys didnt do.what.cops.dod when.i was a kid.here - do you want an arrest or a.beating? We always took.tbe beatings. Btw.cops.may be a.necessary evil but as someone.whose been.to prison i cant stand you bastards. Nothin.personal. i think the problem.is truly.that the corrections industry is just that an industry a business.and nothing.is done.to.change or help change, instead prisons.are built and just become.criminal universities, if.you think.law.enforcement and the corrections.indistry.work.then.look.at.therecidivism rate. Ive lived it. Excuse.the grammar im.typing.this.on a.cell phone on a packed.bus There's this great subforum here called "General Discussion" if you want to discuss the merits of law enforcement. Please stop dragging this thread off-topic. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeCK Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 What was this thread about again? I believe the original poster was asking if a police officer on a pension could stop a T-90 tank if he were a member of a California public Union. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GAZ NZ Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Guys, I've read, both from our Russian members and elsewhere that the force composition of the Russian Army has shifted dramatically from the practically all conscript force we're used to, to closing in on 50% contract soldiers. This should help combat performance quite a bit. From what I can tell, though, other than the title, there is almost no comparison between a worked up from enlisted American sergeant and a Russian one who enters a school fresh into the Russian Army and in short order is a sergeant. That is a critical deficiency in the Russian Army for which there is no quick fix, and it is the NCOs who are the heart and soul of the US Army, indeed of the western militaries in general. I have no idea how to quantify that edge, but it has to be significant. Training deltas and facilities (though the US warriors can but envy the practically limitless, region appropriate training grounds the Russians have at their disposal) have already been discussed, but it should be mentioned that morale is likely to be a strong negative on the Russian side. In an increasingly unpopular war in which soldiers are unknown even to themselves shipped to the border at night, then ordered to cross, this has to be a big factor. It's better to be the outraged defender of a thoroughly violated sovereign nation now subjected to outright invasion than it is to be the almost universally condemend and reviled invaders. Suvorov/Rezun makes this telling point in his trenchant book The "Liberators," based on his own direct experience in the Czechoslovakian Invasion in 1968, where he talks about the progressive unraveling of the Red Army as the Russian soldiers see people who are happy, well fed and prosperous, so why do they need liberation? Much the same thing seems to be happening to the Russian Army regarding Ukraine, and a full-on invasion would only exacerbate the problem. Were I NATO leaders political and military, I'd be very worried were, say, the Kremlin to be bombed (by the FSB) or some other outrage be perpetrated within or outside of Russia which could galvanize domestic support for moves to "punish" those responsible, starting with the "fascist Nazis" next door and expanding from there. Failing some such event, I think Putin's got a huge troop motivation and morale problem on his hands. Over on the very good defense blog Foxtrot Alpha, there is a worthwhile T-90 supportive article in which Tyler Rogoway, a defense journalist and photographer who runs the site, talks about the virtues imbued in the T-90, the amount of capability packed into a much lighter and cheaper tank, and its lessons for US defense planners. As I see it, and I don't have any idea what else may be up MOD's sleeve, I believe the US has the tank edge in armor protection, firepower, sensors, training and crew professionalism. There is no doubt the T-90 can run rings around the much heavier M1 Abrams, and it's tough to beat the observer impression formed by watching a tank fire, in a whole new definition of "on the move" while in midair, and hit the target. Shtora and Arena-E are both impressive and highly capable systems, which, even if they can't deal with Javelin in top attack mode, are able to defeat most ATGMs presently in service. The T-90 undoubtedly has greater operational and strategic mobility than the Abrams. It uses nowhere nearly as much fuel per unit distance traveled, can easily use bridges the Abrams can't, is rapidly deployable by rail and able to pass through railway tunnels for which the Abrams is far too wide. And last I checked, the Abrams doesn't have special narrow tracks, a la the Tiger 1, which could squeeze through Russian tunnels because of them. I think the T-90 is a cool and impressive tank, to the point where my jaw dropped when I watched it perform, but for all the reasons the others and I have named, in a straight up engagement tank on tank, with equal numbers in a face to face fight, I see no way for the Russians to in aggregate prevail. While I doubt we'd see anything remotely like what the US did to the Iraqi's eleite Republican Guard in ODS, on the whole, I'd expect the US to win most of the engagements and for the US to sustain far fewer crew casualties. The record is quite clear. The Abrams does a tremendous of protecting the crew. Pretty much come what may. By contrast, when the T-90 gets hit and penetrated by the M829A4, the net result is going to be exactly the same as for ODS--tank K-Killed and toasted crew. I don't know how the tank balance and respective tank pools by type on a given side shake out, but the Russians better have numerical superiority in tanks, good ones, or they're done before the fight even starts. Nor do I know the force ratios modeled in the game. And on top of everything else, we have Armata. It could potentially be a veritable super tank, but it might turn out to be a tracked F-35! If we stipulate the tank is in fact real and it works as advertised, there's still the matter of producing it. Will there be enough made, in terms of CMBS, to have any really significant impact on the events depicted in the game? If the tank meets the criteria and really is the business, then in the games as we see them, Armata might be a big deal as nasty as the M1A2 SEP V3, the apex predator of the CMBS battlefield, a predator equipped with a hide so hard and tough a rhino would die of embarrassment. I'm not holding my breath. If we do have Armata, it might come with rarity and concomitant cost that would make a Tiger tank in CMBB seem readily available and cheap by comparison. Regards, John Kettler I see it as a numbers game John. Cheaper produced tank, with more of them. They are designed for being used in Russia. While exported they are suited for hiding in russian train tunnels lol. Good strategy to hide from Sats The US tanks remind me of German tanks in Ww2. While superior they were more technical to repair and out numbered 20-1. Id rather have the numbers myself at this point and time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Id rather have the numbers myself at this point and time. You might want to do a check and see how many M1A2s there are vs how many T90s there are in Russian service before you say such things. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 You might want to do a check and see how many M1A2s there are vs how many T90s there are in Russian service before you say such things. It is true that there are more M1A2 in service than T-90, however both points and total numbers in service are irrelevant at the end of the day as its reliant on them actually getting those numbers to the fight. Either across the Atlantic, or across Siberia, nobody will ever get all their tanks into the fight. Most trains will get stuck in Siberia somewhere. its probably worth looking at how many are deployed forward in Germany and in the WMD. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeCK Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 With modern anti tank weapons available to the infantry, attack helicopters and guided munitions, there are far too many variables to apply any lessons from WW2 tank v tank losses anyway 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.