Improving the Military

[Glock Glockler]

Ok, let's have it, how could we be better?

Not being a military man myself, I will have limited opinions, but I'm sure there are those here that can expound at length.

Aside from my obvious desire to replace the M-16 and the 5.56, which will probably not happen, I think we'd be far better off with officers having to work their way up first (I believe "Mustangs" is the term). Do you think that would work?

What else could we be doing better, to make our military a more effective fighting force?

 

[seeker_two]

Military-wise, I think we've got the best there is. Not much room for improvement...

The only fault, as was in Vietnam, Somalia, & Bosnia, is the civilian leadership. Most of the greatest clusterf in US military history came about b/c the politicians ran the war instead of entrusting the military leaders.

The answer: Elect better politicians...:banghead:

 

[Boats]

Okay, I'll go first on this soon coming anyway suggestion:

BUY GLOCKS




















Of course I am just kidding. Who'd want to do that, really?

 

[BigG]

The military has been the rat lab of the social reformists for quite a while.

The US ARMY maxim that leadership is taught but is not inborn is laughable. However that truth disturbs the egalitarian monkeys who reject the idea of some being better endowed by birth and by upbringing.

With the natural leaders frozen out of the military favoritism system they tend to become troublemakers while the incompetent rise to meet their level of incompetence. The Peter principle in action. What the military should instead do is try to channel that natural leadership into a positive direction. JMHO

 

[erikm]

Hmm. I'm not military, but I'll take a swing at this one.

How about a lighter tracked infantry fighting vehicle with a companion tracked fire support vehicle? The M1/M2 combination is arguably the best combination of heavy armor in the world, but deploying any sizable amount to any given spot around the world in less than three weeks is almost impossible. You can airfreight them by C5 or C17, one M1 or 2 M2's at a time, but doing so wrecks runways and stresses airframes. They are also enormous fuel hogs.

For an IFV, I'm thinking of an MTVL (an up-engined stretched M113A3) with a small turret or external weapons station fitted with a light 30mm cannon (M230LF), a M240 machine gun and possibly a weapons mount for a pair of Javelin missiles. Alternately, the MTVL can be fitted with every weapon system that can be fitted to the M113 (there are quite a lot ).

For the fire support vehicle, sometimes also called light tank, I'm thinking of the M8 Armored Gun System. It is a 3 man light tracked vehicle mounting an autoloading 105mm gun and a M240 MG. It was tested, accepted and type-classified before not being fielded for political reasons. If introduced, the 82nd and 101st divisions would probably have fistfights over the rights to the first units to have them.

Both of these vehicles can be transported by a C130 in battleready state and can also be delivered with LAPES or conventional parachute drop. Both can also be fitted with extra armor to withstand cannon fire and RPG warheads.

Yes, I know the US Army is busy trying to field the Stryker Interim Armored Vehicle. Unfortunately it is wheeled1, apparently underarmored, underarmed and is too big and heavy for a C130 to carry it any distance a in battleready state, though I'll admit you can load one on a C130 after stripping off parts. To make things more interesting, the Mobile Gun variant is to tall to fit in a C130 under any circumstances. A more indepth look at the Stryker, and why it should not be fielded is here.

Cheers,
ErikM

1) Wheeled vehicles have far higher ground pressure and, if all wheel drive, far more complex drivetrains than tracked vehicles. Wheeled vehicles get bogged down a lot more easily than tracked vehicles of the same weight. Also, unlike tracked vehicles, they cannot pivot (yet). Imagine yourself on a mountain road surrounded by cliffs when a sudden need to reverse crops up (bridge or tunnel out, for instance). The tracked vehicle pivots on its own axis but the wheeled vehicle will probably have to be reversed down the road.

 

[UnknownSailor]

To expand on erikm's post:

1. Loose the Stryker. Field an uparmored M113.

2. Reduce, but not eliminate the heavy armor. Field the M8 AGS/M113 combination instead.

3. With hindsight to the recent "lessons lerned" posts, consolidate commo gear.

4. Build a couple hundred more C-17s. (or more)

5. Give all remaining A-10 airframes to the Army. Restart the production line, if possible.

6. Convert OICW program into ongoing technological developement program.

7. Field a medium range mobile SAM system. At the moment, we have nothing between Stinger and Patriot. Buy a foreign system, if necessary (Roland, Crotale, Rapier, SA-10, something).

 

[Correia]

Pay the soldiers better.

 

[T.Stahl]

Hmm, everybody is focussed on (maybe!) better equipment.

Nobody thinks about improving the quality of the personnel.

 

[BigG]

T. Stahl: I mentioned they try to train people with certain social characteristics into being leaders rather than taking the natural leaders and developing their natural potential to be outstanding leaders.

You are right. Too much emphasis on equipment rather than making outstanding soldiers. My feeling is it is always easier to upgrade equipment rather than train for better skills.

 

[voilsb]

Originally Posted by BigG:
The US ARMY maxim that leadership is taught but is not inborn is laughable.

I disagree with you. I've seen some people who display absolutely zero natural leadership talent get trained by the Army to become leaders (both NCOs and Officers) and turned out to be excellent leaders. I've seen kids who have almost zero self confidence, constantly waver on decision making, never sure of anything, suddenly (like in a couple of weeks) become confidance, assertive, capable leaders, even though the training situations didn't change. their personality didn't change, it just finally clicked what they needed to do to be a successful leader.

on the flipside, I've also seen people go through the training and turn out as almost worthless leaders.

Now, people who are more "naturally" leaders might get their easier, but chances are they learned how to be leaders rather than were born with it. maybe they had a father who was a good leader, and said "I want to be like him" and started emulating those traits which he admired until they became his own. Maybe he was thrust into leadership at a young age, maybe because of what he did in high school or by being in a situation where he had no choice but to take charge in order to survive. but either way, he had to learn how to be a leader. he wasn't simply born always being a leader.


in a different direction ...

Correia said:
Pay the soldiers better.

and I wholeheartedly agree. pay the soldiers better, to include enlisted personell, warrant and commissioned officers. maybe shrink the pay gap between the enlisted and officers some, where an E-6 with 8 years makes as much as an O-1 with no time in, but give everybody a raise.

 

[Dannyboy]

The best thing, I think, although probably the hardest would be to change the recruiting standards. There are way too many punks and lazy dirtbags in the military now. Of course, if you toughen the standards then you lose quite a few recruits and the military is understrength as it is. Oh well.

 

[erikm]

7. Field a medium range mobile SAM system. At the moment, we have nothing between Stinger and Patriot. Buy a foreign system, if necessary (Roland, Crotale, Rapier, SA-10, something).

This becomes even more embarassing when you know that Redstone Arsenal and the USMC developed and tested a proof of concept variant of the Avenger system that fired AMRAAM missiles (more information). Don't know if it has been or ever will be fielded.

To my untrained civilian eyes, what passes for the US military's procurement system seems designed to make it impossible to field anything useful without first fielding several useless attempts at a cost of several billion dollars.

Cheers,
ErikM

 

[WT]

There are some great ideas above. Let me throw in a couple.

Get 'em some decent boots and some decent commo gear.

Go back to a 1:12 twist in the M16 with 55 gr bullets. Stop producing target rifles and start producing combat rifles. Issue at least 1 M14 to each squad, more if conditions dictate.

Scrap the Harrier fighter as well as that new twin engine tilt wing "flying coffin" the Marines are testing. Scrap the Stryker as well.

Upgrade the M113.

 

[B9mmHP]

What Correia said.
I would have stayed in the Navy, but for having to feed beans to my family every other week, this was when I was an E-5 with 4yrs, 9mo service. NO MORE FREAKING BEANS.

 

[T.Stahl]

I think the US Armed Forces are suffering from the same problem as other professional/non-conscript forces - the lack of good recruits.
The British try to recruit criminals sentenced to not more than a year, the Spanish now accept recruits with an IQ of 70 (seventy!). And from what I hear, the US Forces pay nice bonusses for enlisting and re-enlisting.
I'm sure that contributes to the fact that the US pay ten times as much for four times as large Armed Forces (compared to Germany).

Everywhere the problem is that the smart guys (and girls) prefer a civilian career and what the Army/Navy/Air Force gets are either those who aren't able to find something better or those who are very idealistic.

Compare this to a conscript army like the German Bundeswehr:
The vast majority of NCOs and officers are former conscripts who, during their term or after, decided to stay.
Even if there is a higher rate of conscientious objectors among HS and college graduates, the conscripts still represent a good cross-section of the society.

I dare to say that a conscript army has a higher average IQ, especially below the sergeant level.
I don't know, how many of your ordinary privates or corporals are college graduates?

 

[mons meg]

Scrap the Harrier fighter as well as that new twin engine tilt wing "flying coffin" the Marines are testing. Scrap the Stryker as well.

I would agree with you on the Osprey, but the AV-8B fills a need for the Corps; they can take off and land from the same assault ship that the helos come off of. More "organic" to the expeditionary force.

Like others have said, it's also not about equipment. Let's concentrate on personnel

That said, why doesn't the Army just buy some LAV-25's and quit worrying about the Stryker? Is it because it wasn't their idea?

 

[CZ-100]

I think that All Service members should be paid more and not have to pay taxes AT ALL!

 

[Sean Smith]

People, Ideas and Equipment - in that order.

To do the first, you maintain and improve the human quality of your troops... that means attracting the best people (pay and living conditions when they aren't killing foreigners for you), keeping them (same stuff, pretty much), and improving them as much as possible (training). That's pretty basic stuff, and compared to other armies we are near the top of the heap at this sort of thing. But that is only because we are graded on one hell of a curve... most militaries are imbecilic gun clubs.

Ideas... that's a toughie. Because, on average, American military leadership at higher levels is historically idiotic. Unfortunately, you can't saw the tops off the heads of all your generals, ram a copy of Boyd's Patterns of Conflict into the space where their brains should be, and super-glue the lid back on to make them smarter. Any sort of reform of your general officer corps to make them, on average, more like Patton and less like Clinton would be nice, not that it will ever happen mind you.

Equipment. I was leaving the Army about the time they were assembling the experimental medium/light/heavy/hybrid miracle brigade, and it was a dangerous joke back then. Maybe somebody grew a brain since then? Pentagon procurement is a stupid boondoggle of political pork, intra-service back biting, and cosmic amounts of cash... mission effectiveness is more of a happy side-effect of unlimited money and occasionally miraculous (when it isn't busted) technology than the outcome of a rational procurement scheme. Making things better in the larger scheme of things would require about 10,000 senior officers, civilian employees, lobbyists, and assorted sycophants to be fired.

My guess is that none of this will happen, and we will muddle on and be better by default, simply because we have better people and throw so much money around compared to everyone else.

 

[Navy joe]

-Make all training harder, as in higher standards. Equal standards regardless of gender. No other gender biases. MOS specific physical and aptitude standards.

-Have recruits sign a contract when they enlist, no marriage in first three years. Concentrate on learning how to be military first, not your rent, two car payments, three kids to feed etc. The service academies already require you to be single. A Marine General proposed this for the Corps and got all kinds of rotten fruit chucked his way. Really a good idea once enough divorced 20 year olds with two kids have worked for you.

-I favor a two year draft with civil service/state service opt outs. No smart people deferments unless they sign on for ROTC in school with a fall back enlisted contract if they drop that. I don't believe in a professional standing military on theory(but wait I'm in it). If we have to have one based on the technology of the times that requires professionals who make it a career we should at least try to cultivate the idea of service as a right/rite of citizenship. Sign on bonuses for people who want to make it a career after those two years.

-The big one. Military procurement. We woulda lost WWII if we built weapons then the way we do now. I don't know how to kill the political patronage system that drives the cost of our military, but it's gotta go.

 

[UnknownSailor]

No kidding. How long has the F-22 been in developement again? It was supposed to reach squadron service in 1997, six freaking years ago!

 

[Waitone]

It is clear Rummy wants a really light, deployable force. It is also clear the Army is highly skeptical. An improperly configured army is merely a target field when mismatched against the opponent. Good example. . . . .Gulf I Highway of Death. . . . replace Iraqi vehicles with American vehicles and American casualties. Then sit back and listen to congress and the voter. US Army types want nothing to do with a force structure that deliberately under guns grunts on the ground. Can't say I disagree. As long as our opposition will be arab armies Rummy MAY be right.

If Rummy is serious about lighting up US ground forces, he has to make one significant change to the pentagon. Airpower will increasingly provide cover for an under armed army in Rummy's view. It is only reasonable to put air assets under the total control of ground forces. Rummy should take the Airforce and divide it into two commands (I think its already been done). Space command should become the space command and do whatever it is the space command is supposed to do. Everything else should be transferred to the army since fixed winged aircraft support ground forces anyhow. If the air force's job is to support ground forces, then ground forces and air forces should be integrated. Grunts are not really impressed with planes that go fast. They like planes that go slow, pack a punch, and can take a haymaker. My suggestion would eliminate the AF's worship at the altar of speed and configure its inventory to extend the lifespan of the grunt on the ground. Needless to say, I do not subscribe to the view that air power wins wars. Grunts win wars.

My suggestion is a return to the days of WW II where there existed an Army Air Corp. It also makes the Army and Air force into a true combined arms force.

That oughta stir it up!

 

[hops]

Here is a link to after-action interviews with the end users (troops) regarding equipment used in Iraq. Interesting read and I hope the lessons are actually applied.

http://www.sftt.org/article06102003a.html

 

[BigG]

Waitone, excellent idea about folding the AF into the USA. Interservice rivalry costs too much in lives and $$$.

2) Nuke the Pentagon.

 

[Shooter 2.5]

Refund the Civilian Marksmanship Program.

Let all active and reserve members of the Armed Forces carry concealed in every state anywhere a police officer can.

More live fire training.

More pay.

 

[444]

#1 Eliminate any pretense of political correctness in the military. Take that to mean what you will.
#2 Make the consequenses of being discharged for reasons not including medical or honorable much more severe. As a minimum require them to pay back the wages they had been paid.
#3 Forbid any active duty military personel from being married.
#4 Increase pay substantially.