You just gotta love how US military say everything openly and in their reports. In particular, it has a forecast of US casualties and mobilization reserves in a conflict of this level.
Thesis:
- military doctors project a [KIA and WIA] casualty rate for the US Armed Forces of 3,600\day.
- The combat replenishment rate is 25% or 800 troops per day.
- In 20 years of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. has lost about 50,000 people.
In a conflict of the Ukrainian level, the U.S. would suffer such losses in 2 weeks.
- The recruitment shortage is a major problem.
- every soldier not recruited today is a strategic mobility asset [IRR or reservists] that the US will not have in 2031**
- IRR was 700K in 1973, 450K in 1994, now at 76K.
- These numbers will not make up for the projected losses.
- the 70’s concept of contract forces is outdated and does not fit the current operational environment.
- The needs of the U.S. Armed Forces for a Ukrainian-level war require a transition to conscription.
I don’t think it is sensible to talk about having a Ukrainian level war without also having the Ukrainian scenario or context i.e. being invaded by a next door neighbor with a powerful military.
I feel like there are a whole bunch of important tactics lessons to be learned, like dealing with small grenade dropping drones, but the way that the United States conducts war is pretty different.
If the United States somehow found itself needing to repel and invasion, it is pretty obvious that enlistment rates would suddenly be very different.
Context matters.
US military doesn’t focus on fantasy scenarios though. Their interest is in real world scenarios where US is the invader.
Like invading mexico, which several republican candidates have suggested.
Precisely.
You equate Mexican military to Russian military?
Really?
No, we’re saying that US has openly threatened to invade Mexico. It’s an example of the kinds of things US military actually exists to do.
why would they want to do that
Exactly. So why waste time deciding on conscripted soldiers for a fantasy Ukrainian scenario?
What you evidently missed here is that this is discussing what’s currently happening to the Ukrainian army and their losses. That’s what they’re making their projections based on.
You evidently missed my point which is that the situation for the Ukrainian people is unique to them. The whole What If That Was Us is pure speculative fantasy and not useful.
Except that’s not true at all, what the paper shows is what US can expect if it finds itself in a direct conflict with a peer competitor. Given that US continues trying to provoke a war with China, that’s not that speculative of a scenario.
That is a very big “if”, keeping in mind that the US has not seen a war on its mainland since 1865.
Agreed. Plus it wouldn’t be remotely comparable.
The US military needs to game out its plan for a full-scale intervention in Europe against Russia. If the US deployed as many soldiers to Europe as Ukraine has, it would suffer 3600 casualties a day fighting a full intensity war against the Russians.
That’s simply not how the US goes about it.
It wouldn’t be remotely similar. Even if the US decided to limit itself to weapons it had 30 years ago it would still be not that sort of engagement, because it would cost 3600 casualties a day and the US has a wide array of multilayered and coordinated advanced options to use instead.
I thought that was obvious. Ever look at the military spending budgets? US spends more than the next 10 countries combined.
Russia lies about it’s readiness and weapons capabilities.
The US lies about it’s readiness and weapons capabilities… but in the opposite way.
That’s some rare tier mental gymnastics.
Have you watched any of the readiness analysis? Russia wasn’t maintaining their stuff because corruption.
The US generally does, and invest massive amounts into weaponry, more than is realized.
Hyperbole maybe but grounded in facts. I was surprised at how unready Russia evidently was, especially as the aggressor.
Russia hadn’t fought a war in quite some time and everyone knows it takes time for a peacetime military to readjust, learn the new tactics, and work out the issues revealed by the war. Russia’s military now has worked through those kinks and are comparatively prepared for the kind of large scale war being talked about here
deleted by creator
What war prepared Ukraine then? Wagner group hasn’t exactly been idle so…
Are you predicting Russian victory or improved engagement outcomes with poorly trained conscripts?
the ongoing civil war in the donbass region of ukraine since 2014 meant that at the start of the war ukraine had regiments of people used to violence and fighting in the area. Of course the ongoing fighting means those units are smaller now and a lot more Russian troops are now less green
I am predicting Russian success and Ukraine are the ones getting their military recruits by roaming press gangs right now
Taking on entire NATO arsenal for 1,5 year while not even comitting half of their forces is actually way better than i expected for Russia after 31 years of capitalist fuckery.
And i meant more like how the hell you can read the constant stream of US chestpounding and saberratling happening since 1st Iraq war as underestimating.
jesus christ it always is projection with you western chauvinists isn’t it
Ok, maybe you should write the next article in the US Army War College journal. You clearly have much better info than those bozos
Generally a smart crowd. Someone may have ordered this analysis be done, but it is wildly speculative what if and not useful.
I’ve won a couple arguments with Generals and met brilliant ones, and dumb ones.
“What if we ignored all US war fighting strategy for a scenario where we have mostly a land war again like the good ole days” smh
yeah in large part because of it’s deeply entrenched corruption. Americans also spend vastly more on healthcare but they don’t have better health outcomes
The US Congress definitely keeps voting for more military spending and protecting insurance companies and big pharma - no dispute there.
There’s quite the surge of pro-Russian folks here believing that Russia has an equivalent military and it’s just not remotely true.
Count whatever you want: in flight refueling, airborne radar, aircraft carriers, etc ad nauseum.
I’m not saying anything is good or right or how it should be, but objectively that’s how it is and isn’t surprising given the level of constant spending.
I don’t think it matters who would win a direct war between america and russia because if there was a direct war between america and russia everyone who would care about the outcome would have died in a nuclear war
Did you know the Pentagon has never passed an audit? It has spectacularly failed all 5 they’ve ever done (and they were supposed to do more). Something like 60% of all its assets can’t be accounted for, totalling to several trillion dollars worth of stuff over the years. Weapons, tanks, planes, ships, even buildings are missing.
Turns out when you funnel infinite amounts of money into an organization without any oversight, the people in charge don’t do what they’re supposed to. And that’s just the Pentagon.
Mother of cope.
We have so many expensive ships to slam together the Russians would die laughing
Ukraine provoked such a invasion for 8 years straight. It wasn’t russian troops doing ethnic cleansing in Donbas.
Nah, see. I agree with this bit. Because Ukraine is exactly how United States conducts war - by having someone else do it, while the wall street filth laugh and clink their wine glasses, assured in their own safety and proud of such profitable investment