Low point period for USAEUR ?

[Sequoia]

I've seen a lot of comments around the web about the Cold War low point for the US Army being the late '70s. I have a suspicion this point of view may be related to the feeling that the US was humiliated by the hostage taking in Iran, and the botched rescue attempt. Also, after that time, all US armed forces began a general expansion. By the end of the 80's, as we all know, the Iron Curtain fell, and the Soviet Union began to dissolve.  I am of the opinion this late 70's nadir viewpoint is mistaken, or at least exaggerated.  

Here is my argument, and I'd be happy to read counter arguments. I won't try and make a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy argument regarding the collapse of the Soviet Union here, though I think one could be made. That's not the issue. Rather I want to put forward, as it seems to me, the low point for US Forces in Europe would have been during the height of the Vietnam War, and immediately after. Though the size of US Forces naturally expanded during the War, obviously, a large part or the US Army, Marines and Airforce were in Vietnam at the time, and those forces had the priority in support in terms of new equipment and replacement parts. The Soviet Navy wasn't yet the contender it would become by the late '70s, but it's function would always be of secondary importance. 

After US involvement in Vietnam ended and the temporary peace ensued, there was naturally a decrease in the size of the US armed forces. Nixon soon resigned, but not before having improved relations with China, thereby opening up a "second front" for the Soviets to worry about. The Ford administration at first perused a policy of detente with the Soviets, also began under Nixon. Indeed, there were successes here such as the signing of the SALT I and II treaties. But the US Defense Department was (as proved correct) suspicious of the Soviets and lobbied for further military spending.  

Staring later in the Ford Administration, and continued under Carter, the US Armed forces began to grow again. As I recall, the US Army added at least two divisions then (The 5th Mech at Ft Polk and the 24th infantry at Ft Jackson). The first two Nimitz class carriers were commissioned, and a new generation of Aircraft (The F-14. F-15, F-16 and A-10) came into service, along with an expansion of the number of air squadrons. I've read drug use among troops was high at the time (no pun intended) but find it hard to imagine higher than during the Vietnam war, though I don't know the statistics.  The US armed forces were moving to an All Volunteer force beginning in the mid '70s. There were some "change pains" then, but they were certainly less than the earlier recruitment of substandard (i.e. low IQ) troops by McNamara in the 1960s. Having a force with a large number of draftees has its own issues.

I was in USAEUR in the late '70's to 1980, so perhaps I'm taking the criticisms of the period a bit personal.  I have of course, anecdotal incidents to share from the time, but anecdotes make a poorly supported argument.  Thanks.

[Centurian52]

My own feeling is that the low point for the US as far as balance of conventional forces with the Soviet Union was in the mid to late 50s. That's when you have the Pentatomic Army doctrine. Conventional ground forces were viewed as having little importance, so US ground forces were neglected. The Pentatomic doctrine left US forces too dispersed to either attack or defend effectively, at a time when the US Army was not yet mechanized enough to concentrate quickly (I've heard it described as an overreliance on assets which did not yet exist). The lack of German forces in the early 50s to add to NATO's strength also probably hurt the overall NATO vs WP balance. As far as equipment is concerned the M14 probably does not stack up as well against the AK-47 as the M16 stacks up against the AK-74, and my guess is that the M47 and M48(A3 or earlier (the ones with the old 90mm gun)) Pattons probably don't stack up as well against the T-55 as the M60 stacks up against the T-62 (although I would love to test this, so an early 60s expansion to CMCW would be welcome). Mid 60s to mid 70s are also a contender since the Soviets have the T-64 at a time when the Americans don't even have significant upgrades to the M60 to help close the gap. I definitely think that by the mid 60s some sanity had returned to US Army doctrine and there was a realization that conventional ground forces would still be important even in the nuclear age. But obviously it took some time to catch up.

[chuckdyke]

The British 105mm L70 was designed to beat the Soviet tanks in the 1960's. It was capable of this, and the gun was on par with the Soviet 115mm gun of the T62. Or at least the M60s and the Centurions were on Par with the T62. The 120mm Chieftains were also introduced. Yes, if you play Cold War with only US Forces it won't look too bright. To ignore British Chieftains and the German Leopards they did this game a disservice Imo. 

[Bobjack1240]

Carter tried to abandon South Korea in 1977 until the CIA talked him out of it (Inexcusable Restraint: The Decline of American Military Power in the 1970s).

He did try to improve the nuclear forces, created the Rapid Deployment Force, and at least meant well when it came to his defense policy but his original plans for Korea were unforgivable. Especially the year before when Army maintenance personal were ambushed and murdered by the North Koreans and as part of the retaliation under Operation Axe Murder, the overall situation was bad enough that Pres Ford felt the need to order flybys with nuke equipped B-52s.

Also, Nixon's escalation of Vietnam screwed up the defense budget and put off force modernization by years so the introduction of the Big 5 when Regan was President rather than Carter wasn't Carter's fault. (Inexcusable Restraint: The Decline of American Military Power in the 1970s). The damage Nixon's Vietnam escalation caused was so bad Kissinger gave him a set of options: abandon Taiwan, abandon Korea, or abandon Europe.

Edited February 17, 2023 by Bobjack1240

[Sequoia]

Well I don't desire  to try an bring in everything of the Cold War into this, including as British and German forces .  

Bobjack, you lost me as to what the Big 5 is. Also I'm unsure what you mean by Nixon escalating the War in Vietnam? He began the policy of Vietnamization to end US involvement by having South Vietnamese forces take on a bigger role. One could argue the policy failed as eventually the South fell, but other than remaining there forever I don't know if there was a winning strategy.

 

 

[Bobjack1240]

The Big 5 (Abrams, Backhawk, Bradley, Patriot, and Apache). It may have been because of Lyndon Johnson's Tet escalation but nonetheless, Kissinger still felt the need to present him with the options for theatres that the US would have to abandon. Also, the budget cuts Congress imposed only made the situation even worse (Inexcusable Restraint: The Decline of American Military Power in the 1970s).

 

The modernization put off even went as far down as tank ammunition. For example, M-735 had been live fire tested as early as 1974 but wasn't introduced until FY-78. To put off was especially dangerous because GSFG first started getting T-64s in 1976. While the TOW baseline could pen the glacis of the 64A as per West German tests with a 105mm HEAT round with the same rha penetration against T-72M1s, this wasn't ideal.

https://www.angelfire.com/mi4/armania/armor/armour/t72/T72M1.html

 

[Centurian52]

It's too late for me to edit my earlier comment. But it's spelled "Pentomic", not "Pentatomic". And now that is going to bug me until the end of time. At least with my profile name I can pretend the misspelling was intentional.

[Vacillator]

2 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

At least with my profile name I can pretend the misspelling was intentional

You do know you can change that?  I had a similar issue, a mis-type now corrected .

[Centurian52]

4 minutes ago, Vacillator said:

You do know you can change that?  I had a similar issue, a mis-type now corrected .

It's grown on me now. I think the misspelling adds character.

[Vacillator]

15 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

I think the misspelling adds character

Yeah, nothing wrong with that.  I had 3 l's and that made it look like I was taking even more time to make a decision .

[Sequoia]

Isn't Pentatomic an acapella recording group?

[strac_sap]

Given you were in USAEUR what can you say about the morale of the forces at the time '79-'80? Seeing the war in Ukraine reminds about the importance of this. I had a first sergeant who would lament the bad old days in Germany when they'd smoke bud out of their soda cans in the motor pool instead of PMCS in the mid 70's. This anecdotal evidence doesn't point to anything in general, but is a data point I've held on to over the years.

I would disagree about the best equipment going to Vietnam. Notice their were no M60's there, nor other high tech equipment, and this was deliberate. So it isn't clear that Vietnam was a negative in that sense, but surely the budget took quite a bit away from Europe.  This makes me think that morale would be the biggest factor...

EDIT: should add that training and budget for training would be high on the importance list as well. Especially larger unit formations.

Edited June 27, 2023 by strac_sap