US repeatedly defeated in high end wargames

a reply to: Nickn3

True, that.

If the US conventional forces start losing badly, yeah, the SLBM's will certainly fly.

Sounds like we shouldnt strive to have world wars for eternity then. UNTHINKABLE!

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: nightbringr

The problem is that the biggest chunk of that money goes into infrastructure and operations. Our military is still geared to fight the way it was in the 90s. Instead of going smaller and more effective, they want to go for the sledgehammer approach.

Not disagreeing at all there, but it still seems with the vast amounts of money being spent you'd fare a little better.

It's obviously time for a review of expenditures and doctrine.

These simulations aren't figuring in secret/classified/black weapons.

When the shtf and we roll out the big black triangles, warp speed, and photon torpedoes we'll see what happens.

a reply to: abe froman

Ever seen guys try to service a big black triangle in MOPP gear?

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: abe froman

Ever seen guys try to service a big black triangle in MOPP gear?

Like watching paint dry under the ocean in the deepest trench.

You can bet Russia and China are also war gaming similar scenarios. Thanks to the Clintons we gave China a big leg up technologically, along with intellectual property theft which doesn't bother them a bit. We develop at a cost of billions and they steal it for a few thousand. Russia hasn't fought a war since Afghanistan in the 1980's but I suspect the Kremlin follows a far different valuation on technology versus dependability and flexibility of weapons systems. The US may have the technological marvels but as the games show each is vulnerable in some fashion.

Our continued commitment to a huge carrier fleet is a legacy from WW2 thinking whose time has passed. They project a lot of power but are vulnerable even with a full escort fleet of smaller vessels. They have tied up more resources than any other military item with increasingly smaller returns. They will be the first targets in any real war to come. Drones are changing the landscape of warfare forever and the public is in the dark as to what the military actually has. How much that factored in the war games is hard to say but I suspect it is what future wars will either be won or lost because of.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Russia hasn't fought a war since Afghanistan in the 1980's

I keep forgetting Chechnya and Georgia were in the 70s.

And that whole Ukraine thing..........

a reply to: RadioRobert

I'd imagine it would be similar to doing it on a sub.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Our military is still geared to fight the way it was in the 90s. Instead of going smaller and more effective, they want to go for the sledgehammer approach.

It’s took me forever to find this article . In 2017 China’s armor tactics were still at the divisional level . Then they conducted non-simulated wargames.

A Chinese armored division ( red team) went up against a (blue team) that was organized to emulate a US armor brigade.

The outcome of the exercise blew them away . The blue team won 32 times and had 1 defeat. Against one of the best equipped armored divisions in the Chinese army. They suffered 70% simulated casualties . The red team political officer was caught crying on camera . Lol

Apparently that was enough for Xi. He cut 300,000 troops, finally decided to decentralize command to a joint command structure and initiate changes closer to our tactics and unit strength.

They even did a documentary on it shortly afterwards that was aired on regular TV ! This is speculation but I would guess he did that so he wouldn’t have to battle as hard with the old guard .

Here it is of course it’s in Chinese. But hey I guess we couldn’t get them to go full-fledged American and adopt the English language. For the hat trick . Lol






thediplomat.com...

a reply to: Fallingdown

Aren't corrupt Chinese generals one of the stock Hollywood super villains?

a reply to: cenpuppie

Hollywood hasn’t been around for 4000 years and they have . 🤔

This is another reason why America should not provoke Russia or China in general let alone moving closer and closer to Russian borders trying to provoke Russia.

originally posted by: Fowlerstoad
a reply to: Nickn3

True, that.

If the US conventional forces start losing badly, yeah, the SLBM's will certainly fly.

Russian air forces and anti air defense systems are quite effective, majority of the SLBM's will miss majority of Russian cities and areas. Although i cant say the same for Europe.

Russian missiles in some cases are unpredictable.

Not completely discounting the report, but I know if I was the decision maker in these war games I'd be holding back from showcasing our full potential and using the experience moreso as an opportunity to learn about the capabilities/tactics of my opponents. But of course to some extent I'm sure they'd do the same -- so who knows.

a reply to: AtlasHawk

Don't believe all the propaganda. No defense is perfect, and stopping an ICBM is a nontrivial challenge, no matter who you are.

a reply to: Navieko

These are internal wargames done by the Pentagon. They're "paper" games, with access to a lot of things we don't know about.

This looks more like a inventory problem, in the article it states more money and more missiles could solve the problem.

If we went to war with either China or Russia... I'm pretty sure our inventory will go up pretty quick. To me it sounds like these war games are rigged to increase military spending.

a reply to: Zaphod58
Ah my bad, that makes more sense -- and yes indeed worrying!

a reply to: imitator

The problem with that theory is that I've been hearing a lot of these same things for years from private sources. Telling me these things privately isn't going to increase spending.

It's not an inventory issue, is a doctrinal issue. Pretty much forever the doctrine has been that the Air Force defends its own bases, using its own assets. Fighter squadrons defend themselves, they don't let the Army defend them. Despite multiple lessons demonstrating that mentality is outdated, it's still holding strong.

Then after Desert Storm, when it came out that the Patriot didn't perform as well as it was said to have in the antimissile role, it was somewhat scaled back. Instead of developing multiple aircraft systems, they put all their money on the Patriot and counting on fighters being able to get off the ground in time.