US repeatedly defeated in high end wargames

a reply to: FingerMan

I am aware of all of that. I'm also not going to just sit here and laugh off the thought of them defeating us in either scenario mentioned, just because of what we've done in the past.

Long term, fighting on our terms, sure, we would almost certainly be able to push them back and win. It's the short term fight on their terms that's questionable. Throw in everything else, like the political will to win, and civilian support, and I absolutely believe they could achieve their objectives and easily take both those areas.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Well the good news is that F-35 is shining in these games. It is an absolute game changer. The Navy is going through a transformative era- The Fords arn't going anywhere but stealhier platforms both large (future CG/DDG replacement) and small (unmanned drones) are going to change how they fight. The Air Force is kind of F'd. They screwed themselves on the whole F-22 thing, 180 airframes was never going to cut it, but there is hope. The hypersonics programs, new aim-240 and the quarterbacking ability of the F-35 is transformational. The Army is trying to transform as well- hopefully they don't have their nose bloodied before they pull it off. My beloved Corps is placing a huge emphasis on cyber, and on amphibious warfare.


What I'm getting at is 5 years from now, this would be an entirely different conversation, sadly, the world may not wait 5 years for us to get our s&!t together.

a reply to: GD

There's a ton we haven't heard about in the AF that would radically change the situation. Like I said, long term, we'd own any opponent you care to name. The problem is that it takes time to get our forces in theater. Deny us that time, or, in the case of Taiwan, push our forces back where it's harder for them to even get to the fight, and things change. We haven't had the political will, or civilian support to actually fight a war since WWII. And Russia and China are well aware of that.

a reply to: Zaphod58

You are absolutely right on the will to win. At Iwo Jima, there were 6,822 casualties with nearly 2,420 casualties in the first day. The total at Iwo was more than the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, combined. The day one total was higher than the total for Afghanistan. I also worry about the ROC- it would be incredibly bloody.

a reply to: GD

There's an argument to be made that the US lacked that same political will prior to Pearl Harbor. I feel like a colossal attack would manufacture that will in spades. The issue is we don't have the ability to replace the weapons systems that would be destroyed within the first few weeks.

At the same time, I've seen some smaller institutional changes within the Army, particularly the revival of stingers and increasing emphasis on Javelins. The Marines have really got the right idea with their UTVs and I wish we could get tons more of them. I know the 82nd is getting a ton, but it needs to be proliferated more widely, especially to light infantry units like the 10th mountain.

My view doesn't extend beyond the realm of the infantry battalion, but bringing back the 11H MOS and going for an off the shelf heavy ATGM replacement for TOW would be my two biggest priorities.

a reply to: hawkguy
True, but we are not necessarily talking about a Pearl Harbor like event. This could be Taiwan, or a wild hair up Putins behind. Then we are looking at moving our forces around- like Zaph said.

a reply to: GD

I feel the Chinese wouldn't move on Taiwan while Okinawa/Guam still exist as major bases. That'd be leaving their flanks too open. And I think the public would be horrified and enraged by a massive ballistic missile attack on Guam/Okinawa, let alone if they try to coordinate it with attacks on carriers. I think it would have the opposite effect that the Chinese would hope for.

That's my moderately uninformed opinion.

Unless war games have changed alot since i was in US forces are always put in situations were the odds are against them.

So losing doesn't really surprise me happens all the time at the National Training Center. The trick is to learn something from the loss

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Zaphod58

It's going to take a major defeat before minds get changed.

This is bad news indeed.

In fact the twin towers had to be a pile of rubble before the enemy of both Man and God was to be taken seriously.

a reply to: dragonridr

right or escalating situations where there isn't a winning outcome

sometimes the best practice is where you get your butt whooped. and in a real peer to peer fight the US would suffer alot more losses than we are used to seeing

obligatory Kobayashi Maru meme

a reply to: dragonridr

It's one thing to lose and learn from it, and another to just keep losing. At NTC and other similar exercises, the goal is for the OPFOR to lose by the end of the training cycle. Or at least for them to not win. If you repeatedly lose, and don't learn anything from it the exercise loses much of its purpose.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: dragonridr

It's one thing to lose and learn from it, and another to just keep losing. At NTC and other similar exercises, the goal is for the OPFOR to lose by the end of the training cycle. Or at least for them to not win. If you repeatedly lose, and don't learn anything from it the exercise loses much of its purpose.

Opfor has all the advantages at NTC. They know the territory they are given statistical advantages. To pull out a win at NTC is very difficult but its meant to be that way. For example i personally went 3 times we won 1 time. But to be honest we cheated to do it. We airlifted our entire cav 40 klicks. It was shall we say unexpected as suddenly heavy armor was behind their lines.

As i said opfor is given all the advantages any training where you can easily win has no value.

a reply to: dragonridr

I think a real hot war will be a poop show if it were peer to peer.

is it still Russian doctrine to see tactical nukes as viable battlefield options in a regional war?

a reply to: dragonridr

Yes, but OPFOR does occasionally lose. These exercises that are being talked about are going back to the days of the Air Force having to defend their base, which they haven't had to do in so long no one remembers how to. I understand that an easy win scenario isn't useful for training, but losing every single time eventually only teaches you to lose.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Dfairlite

And the North Vietnamese were a bunch of untrained guys running around the jungle in pajamas. And there was no way the Serbs could have shot down an F-117. And so on, and so on.

As they say, pride goeth before the fall.
Too many inflated ego posts.

a reply to: jacobe001

both wars you quoted were not a true picture of all out american power, decimating entire countries is a hard sell to congress and even more so to the public.

also they were decades ago and considering all the missions the nighthawk flew it has an almost perfect record.


gorilla warfare cant be beat without taking the gloves off and going total war...think Dresden levels of death.


the US is not invincible, its true weakness is having their hands tied by rules of engagement or public opinion.

a reply to: penroc3


How do you say B 52 in Vietnamese?

North Vietnam accepted all the terms the U.S. demanded at the Paris peace accords.

The twelve days of Christmas 1972 and all that.

The military didn’t fail to win the war, the politicians failed to win the peace.

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: jacobe001

both wars you quoted were not a true picture of all out american power, decimating entire countries is a hard sell to congress and even more so to the public.

also they were decades ago and considering all the missions the nighthawk flew it has an almost perfect record.


gorilla warfare cant be beat without taking the gloves off and going total war...think Dresden levels of death.


the US is not invincible, its true weakness is having their hands tied by rules of engagement or public opinion.

That tends to happen when thousands of coffins start coming back when fighting others wars on the other side of the globe.
Also, you may complain about the politicians getting in the way, but without the politicians, there would be no war to begin with.

I find your evaluation troublesome,
The learning curve on cyber warfare is
obvious. I mentioned it many moons ago
and was thus called a propagandist here.

I would say that the current administrations
investment in rebuilding our military is long
overdue and proper.
Yet my concerns grow when reading threads like this
that suggest a complacency and money not well spent
towards "peace through strength".

With all the potential variables that you mention,
I have faith that the counter punch retaliation
would be so unsavory ( to all parties involved), that those who would
be foolish enough to initiate a first strike would be mentally unstable
to begin with.

Needless to say, your source only discusses defense technology
that it is aware of.
S&F Great Thread

originally posted by: Zaphod58

These ARE our wargames.

They didn't say much about individual exercises so we don't know what the scenarios were.

Kind of stack the deck there...how about NATO counties against Russia and China. Like to see them try a land invasion...lol