Military Review

Cover Army: US Ground Forces

71
Cover Army: US Ground Forces



The Pentagon does not consider this type of armed forces its main striking force, counting on Aviation and fleet

The United States is one of the very few countries in the world in which ground forces are not the dominant type, neither in terms of the number of personnel, nor in the number of weapons and equipment, nor in contribution to military operations, nor in terms of influence. For Americans, the most important type of armed forces (AF) has always been the fleet, and then also aircraft. Moreover, in connection with the current "war fatigue" and the Pentagon budget cuts, these trends will only strengthen. Nevertheless, the US ground forces, of course, have enormous military potential.

The organization of the American ground forces is very complex because of their size and spatial scope. It is divided into commands of various levels. The headquarters of field armies (PAs) remain, which, as a rule, duplicate the territorial commands and must replace them in the event of war. On the territory of the United States themselves are also the corps - the army (AK) and airborne (VDK). The main type of formations are divisions, each of which currently includes four linear brigades and an army aviation brigade. In the near future, due to the general reduction of the US Armed Forces, most divisions will lose one linear brigade each. Linear brigades are divided into heavy (armored), light (infantry, airborne) and Stryker brigades equipped with the same combat vehicles (these brigades can be considered as “medium”).

The Ground Forces Command (headquarters in Fort Bragg, North Carolina) has 1 th PA, 1 th and 3 st AK, 18 th VDC, two training centers and a reserve command. Almost all military units of the ground forces deployed in the main territory of the United States obey him.

3-th AK (Fort Hood, Texas) includes most of the "heavy" compounds. These are 1-I armored, 1-I cavalry (really - also armored), 1-I and 4-I infantry (in reality - mechanized) divisions, as well as four air defense brigades, four artillery brigades, a number of other parts and corps subordination units .

18-th VDK (Fort Bragg) includes most of the "mobile" connections. These are 3-I infantry, 10-I light infantry (mountain), 82-I airborne and 101-I air-assault division, air defense brigade, a number of other parts and corps units.

1-th AK (Fort Lewis-McCord, Washington) is a reserve-training association. It includes the 7-Infantry Division, which cannot be called a combat unit, its headquarters is responsible only for combat training and logistic support for the units assigned to it. These are the three Stryker brigades of the 2 Infantry Division (to be discussed below), the Army Aviation Brigade and the Artillery Brigade.

1-I PA (Rock Island, Illinois) includes two training divisions ("West" and "East"). The ground reserve command (Fort Bragg) is primarily responsible for the logistics of the ground forces.

In addition, the Ground Forces Command has two training centers: Fort Irwin and Joint Training. The 11 armored cavalry regiment (equivalent to the armored brigade), which serves as a conditional enemy for other units and formations, is deployed in Fort Irvine. The highest-level commanders in the United States are also the Command Command (Fort Eustis, Virginia) and the MTO Command (Redstone, Alabama), their purpose is clear from the names, there are no combat units in their composition.

Deployed in the United States, combat units that are not subordinate to the Ground Forces Command are part of the Special Operations Forces (MTR) Command and Space Command.

The MTR command (Fort Bragg) is composed of seven MTR groups (including two in the National Guard), the 1 squadron MTR (Delta group, antiterrorist unit), the 75 th ranger regiment, the 160 th MF regiment , 4 th and 8 th group of psychological operations, 95 th brigade of work with the civilian population, 528 th brigade of support, Training center MTR.

Space Command (Redstone, Alabama) incorporates the 1 th space brigade and the 100 th missile defense brigade. Ground forces outside the United States and in the two enclave states (Alaska and Hawaii) are part of two territorial commands and one PA.

The European command and the duplicating 7 th PA (Wiesbaden, Germany) have the 2 Cavalry Regiment (equivalent to the Stryker Brigade) (Vilsec, Germany), the 173 Airborne Brigade (Vicenza, Italy), 12 Army Aviation Brigade (Ansbach, Germany), 10 Air Defense Command (Kaiserslautern, Germany), 21 Supply Command (Kaiserslautern; Includes 18 Engineer Brigade (Schwetzingen), 16 Support Brigade (Bamberg); military police brigade (Zembach), 18 and 405 support brigades, 409 reconnaissance b IGAD, 66-2-yu and yu communications team (Wiesbaden).



Soldiers from the Stryker 2 Brigade in Fort Shefter, Hawaii.


Pacific Command (Fort Shefter, Hawaii) is responsible for the defense of Alaska and the Hawaiian Islands. The 25 Infantry Division (Scofield, Hawaii) incorporates the Stryker 1 and 2 Brigade, the 3 Infantry Brigade, the 4 th Airborne Brigade, and the Army Aviation Brigade. The 1-I and 4-I brigades are deployed in Alaska, the 2-I, 3-I and aviation - in Hawaii. In addition, the Pacific Command is subject to the 94-I missile defense brigade (Fort-Shefter), the 8-i support command (including the 8-i brigade of the military police, the 45-I support brigade, the 130-i engineering brigade), the 311-i command communications (in its composition - 1-I and 516-I communication brigades), 196-I infantry brigade, 500-I reconnaissance brigade.

8-I PA (Seoul, Republic of Korea) is not organizationally part of the Pacific Command, is responsible for the defense of the Republic of Korea. The 2 Infantry Division incorporates the 1 heavy brigade, the 2 th, 3 th, 4 th Stryker brigade (as mentioned above, they are located in the United States and are administratively subordinate to the 7 th 1 Infantry Division th AK), a brigade of army aviation, 210-I artillery brigade. The units of military subordination are the 19-i security command, 35-I air defense brigade, 501-I intelligence, 1-i communications, 65-I medical brigade.

The US Army has four more territorial commands, each of which is duplicated by the field army headquarters. These are Northern Command, 5-I PA (San Antonio, Texas; responsible for the defense of North America), Southern Command, 6-I PA (San Antonio, Texas; responsible for Latin America region, except Mexico), Central Command, 3 PA (Shaw, South Carolina; responsible for the Middle East and Central Asia region), African Command, 9-I PA (Vicenza, Italy). In peacetime, all of them are purely headquarters structures that do not have parts in constant submission.

The National Guard is responsible for the defense of the territory of the United States, its units in peacetime are subject to state governors. In reality, since there is no one to defend the territory of the country, they are regularly involved in operations abroad. There are eight infantry divisions in the ground forces of the National Guard.

In just ten divisions of the regular troops there are 40 line brigades, 11 brigades of army aviation, one artillery brigade. In the two training divisions of the 1 PA, there are nine infantry, two armored, one cavalry, three artillery, one army aviation brigade. Under the command of the commanders, armies and corps - one infantry and airborne brigade, three regiments equivalent to brigades, three army aviation brigades, five air defense brigades, six artillery, reconnaissance and communication brigades, seven engineering brigades, nine military police brigades, 21 support team. In the eight divisions of the National Guard - 20 infantry, one "Stryker", one heavy, four armored, one cavalry, eight army aviation brigades. Total - 171 team for various purposes.

The only a tank, which is in service with the US Army, is the M1 Abrams. In the regular parts there are 1936 machines of the most modern modification M1A2 (including 1353 even more advanced M1A2SEP). Of the 3398 tanks of the previous M1A1 modification, most were transferred to storage. Also in storage are old versions of the Abrams (with a 105-mm gun, monolithic armor and outdated equipment) - 891 M1IP and 1128 M1. Perhaps this number is lower, since some of the old tanks are disassembled into spare parts, some are converted into more modern options or into engineering vehicles without weapons.

As for the other armored vehicles, currently the main combat vehicle of the US Army - "Stryker", which is available in ten versions. It is these machines that are equipped with the Stryker brigade, which, according to the American command, combine combat power and mobility.

Despite the presence of a significant number of reconnaissance UAVs in the troops, attention is still paid to ground reconnaissance. In service is up to 1722 combat reconnaissance vehicles (BRM) M3 "Bradley" and 361 upgraded BRM of the same type M7A3 BFIST. The Stryker family includes at least 577 “BRM proper” M1127, 139 M1128 combat vehicles (with 105-mm gun), at least 166 machines supporting M1131, not less than 141 machines RHBZ M1135. In addition, there are 465 light BRM M1200 and 96 German Tpz-1 Fuchs.



Tank М1 "Abrams".


The BMP class is represented by the Bradley M2 machines. In total, the ground forces have no more than 6193 BMP M2 and BRM M3 "Bradley" (these are two versions of one machine), 4559 in the ranks, the rest in storage.

Of the BTR, M113A2 / A3 remains the most numerous, their 13 943 units, they are gradually being deposited or sold abroad. The Stryker family includes at least 1794 "BTR itself" M1126, at least 337 of M1130 headquarters machines, at least 150 of MXXUMX light engineering machines, and at least 1132 of M267 medical machines. In addition, the troops have more than 1133 thousands of anti-guerrilla armored vehicles built using MRAP technology (with enhanced mine protection). The vast majority of these machines do not have weapons, being, in essence, vehicles, and not BBM. Therefore, about 16 thousands of them will be written off after the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan.

American troops have 969 ACS M109А6 (155 mm). Still 975 old SAU М109А1 / 2 are in storage. In general, the M109 ACS was put into service in 50's, but six upgrades have passed, the M109А6 variant is considered to meet modern requirements.

There are more than 2,1 thousands of towed guns, including 638 newest M777A1 / 2 (155 mm), almost 2,5 thousands of mortars, including Stryker 417 (1129 mm).

The 991 MLRS M270 / A1 MLRS and 359 lightweight versions of the same system M142 HIMARS (227 mm) are in service. All these MLRS are also PU for OTP ATACMS.

There are 2119 self-propelled Tou ATGMs (1379 on the Hammer, 626 M901 (on the M113), 114 M1134 Stryker) and several thousand portable Javelin ATGMs.

The basis of the army air defense make up the long-range air defense system "Patriot", which is equipped with all air defense brigades. The brigade includes two to four battalions, each of which has three to four batteries of six to eight launchers (four missiles each). In total there is 1106 PU ZRK "Patriot".

In addition to the “Patriot”, the only active American air defense system is the Stinger MANPADS. The arsenal consists of several thousands of MANPADS proper, as well as the Avenger 703 short-range air defense missile systems (4 Stinger MANPADS on the Hummer vehicle) and 95 ZRPK M6 "Leinbaker" (the same on the BMN MXNX chassis).

All US Army aircraft perform support functions. These are the 47 RC-12 reconnaissance and surveillance aircraft, nine Dash-7 electronic reconnaissance aircraft and about 250 light transport aircraft.

The basis of the strike power of army aviation is the X-NUMX AN-901 Apache helicopter (64 A, 165 D, production continues). Multiple-purpose and reconnaissance helicopters - 736 OH-843, 58 MH-24, and also 6 EW-64A EW helicopters and CCO helicopters - 60 MH-61G, 47 MH-69 can also be attributed to combat.

In addition, military aviation has 28 rescue helicopters HH-60L, 181-AI, which is a training helicopter TH-67 and transport helicopters - 459 CH-47, 1961 UH-60, 235 EC145 (aka UH-72A), also UH-26, XHUMX UH-1, XNUMX ECXNUMX (also UH-XNUMX), which is UH-XNUMX, XNUMX ECXNUMX (also UH-XNUMX), which is UH-XNUMX, XNUMX ECXNUMX

US ground forces appear to be the only ones in the world with their own fleets. It includes six amphibious transports of the "Frank Besson" type and 118 amphibious assault boats of various types.

The new American military strategy practically does not imply the participation of ground forces in hostilities, with the exception of the extremely unlikely event of a large-scale war. If it is absolutely necessary, the marines, which are part of the Navy, will fight on land (the level of combat training of its personnel is generally higher than in the ground forces). Upgrading ground forces is proceeding at a rather slow pace, completing purchases of the Stryker BBM, the M777 howitzers, the Apache and UH-72A Lacoste helicopters, as well as reconnaissance UAVs and various communications equipment, EW, etc. Nevertheless, the combat power of the ground forces remains very high, they are guaranteed to be superior in the foreseeable future to any army in the world except the Chinese.
Author:
Originator:
http://rusplt.ru/world/us-army-8839.html
71 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. borisjdin1957
    borisjdin1957 27 March 2014 08: 21
    +13
    from the Don.
    But the amers do not; polite people :!
    1. PANZER
      PANZER 27 March 2014 09: 39
      +8
      The Pentagon does not consider this type of armed forces as its main striking force, relying on aircraft and fleet

      Well, in vain! The territory is not considered occupied until the "queen of the fields" has passed through it. Planes and ships tend to end.
      I would bet anything that the infantry battalion of conscripts of the Russian army will make a similar subdivision of contract soldiers SUSHYA in an open clash.
      1. strannik595
        strannik595 27 March 2014 11: 01
        +8
        as they say, until the soldier’s eggs appeared over the enemy’s trench, one cannot assume that victory was won
        1. avg
          avg 27 March 2014 15: 06
          +1
          Quote: strannik595
          as they say, until the soldier’s eggs appeared over the enemy’s trench, one cannot assume that victory was won

          You are a little mistaken. “Eggs over the trench”, this is the time “H” - the time of attack of the front edge of the enemy’s defense, from which all calculations are carried out. But this doesn’t change the essence. They, as always, expect to sit out overseas, shooting tomahawks by the forces of the Navy, and let the “eggs over the trenches” be shot off by the Allies.
      2. NovelRZN
        NovelRZN 27 March 2014 11: 14
        +4
        Will do, without options, the question is at what cost.
        I read that in the Second World War they had standards, that with the loss of 30% of the personnel, a military unit is considered to have completely lost its combat readiness and should be sent for reformation. Surely, such standards are valid now.
        Naturally, they will start crap "bricks" much earlier - even with losses of 10-15%, their real combat effectiveness immediately drops by 40-50%. Financially, they are certainly the best army in the world, but in terms of moral stability they are one of the last. What to do, the costs of education)))
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 27 March 2014 16: 06
          +2
          Such standards have nothing to do with morality; throw one gear out of the mechanism and that's it. So it is in the army, if the composition is not complete, then all tactics and opportunities go to hell, not to mention, since the number of wounded usually exceeds the number of dead by several times, then with 30% of the dead, everyone will be wounded. And thus the power of the unit drops very quickly and at the same time, losses also increase. Thus, all the normal armies of the world, including the Soviet and the current Russian, use a constant rotation of forces. Damaged units are withdrawn and replaced with backup ones, they are given rest, replenishment, treatment repair, and again a replacement of forces. To minimize their losses and maximize enemy.
        2. Stalevar
          Stalevar 29 March 2014 08: 00
          0
          A soldier must fight for his homeland, not for money - this is undeniable!
      3. S-17
        S-17 27 March 2014 13: 26
        +1
        And why do they need the SV infantry if they have the marines, moreover, as a separate type of troops. I think that there are people sitting under the pagans, some experts, but not couch experts (to my personal account, the latest wording, please do not accept) ...
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 27 March 2014 14: 02
          -2
          Quote: S-17
          And why do they need the SV infantry if they have the marines, moreover, as a separate type of troops.

          300 bayonets - not enough for a war with a serious enemy.
      4. S-17
        S-17 27 March 2014 13: 26
        +1
        And why do they need the SV infantry if they have the marines, moreover, as a separate type of troops. I think that there are people sitting under the pagans, some experts, but not couch experts (to my personal account, the latest wording, please do not accept) ...
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 27 March 2014 14: 03
          0
          Quote: S-17
          I think they’re sitting there with pagons,

          As in any other army in the world, there are specialists, and there are foreigners in different proportions.
      5. Myth
        Myth 27 March 2014 13: 56
        +1
        Where does confidence come from?
      6. Setrac
        Setrac 27 March 2014 14: 01
        +1
        Quote: PANZER
        I would bet anything that the infantry battalion of conscripts of the Russian army will make a similar subdivision of contract soldiers SUSHYA in an open clash.

        The Americans will put up two of their own for each of our battalions, to win our battalion of conscripts must defeat two battalions of American conscripts (I do not remember what they are called there), and this does not include the US allies.
      7. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 27 March 2014 16: 03
        +1
        You have a great combination of a post and an avatar, "caps off"
      8. patsantre
        patsantre 27 March 2014 19: 48
        0
        They have no conscripts.
      9. philip
        philip 28 March 2014 05: 55
        0
        And if these conscripts of the MP or the troops of Uncle Vasya, then "zyuzya" will be shorter.
    2. polite people
      polite people 27 March 2014 11: 23
      0
      And we have. And very, very much.
    3. polite people
      polite people 27 March 2014 11: 23
      +2
      And we have. And very, very much.
  2. Keeper
    Keeper 27 March 2014 08: 23
    0
    The more sugary conditions they have in the army, the weaker the spirit!
  3. Coffee_time
    Coffee_time 27 March 2014 08: 30
    -1
    Without cola and chips, the chances of winning are minimal
    1. mamont5
      mamont5 27 March 2014 08: 55
      +6
      Quote: Coffee_time
      Without cola and chips, the chances of winning are minimal

      And without diapers in general, Khan.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. asv96
        asv96 27 March 2014 13: 54
        0
        In diapers, the eggs still freeze in the winter
    2. E.S.A.
      E.S.A. 28 October 2019 20: 04
      0
      Quote: Coffee_time
      Without cola and chips, the chances of winning are minimal

      Cola, chips, diapers, ice cream - these are all parts of the verbal code that indicates support for tanks, artillery, aviation, tanks, the transportation of specific types of ammunition, etc.
  4. Mihail177
    Mihail177 27 March 2014 08: 31
    +3
    the combat power of the US ground forces remains very high, they are guaranteed to surpass in the foreseeable future any army in the world except the Chinese.
    Too optimistic. US can only fight for the bubble with a weak opponent.
    1. Sunjar
      Sunjar 27 March 2014 08: 42
      +7
      The article is good. You need to know what and how the Western "colleagues" work.

      In support of Mikhail, I will supplement 177: if you have to fight with an equal or rather strong enemy, then planes, missiles, UAVs will be knocked down, and it is impossible to do them endlessly, just like the means of defeating all this charms, but the latter is still cheaper. And here you still have to land on the ground ...

      No one knows how to fix a duplicate message problem. I have two of the same issue.
      1. CTEPX
        CTEPX 27 March 2014 09: 06
        +3
        Quote: Sunjar
        No one knows how to fix a duplicate message problem. I have two of the same issue.

        Use NOT an explorer)).
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Fin
      Fin 27 March 2014 09: 44
      -1
      US ground forces, of course, have enormous military potential.

      Potential in 90% of cases is not disclosed.
      the combat power of the ground forces remains very high, they are guaranteed to surpass in the foreseeable future any army in the world, except the Chinese.

      They will never stick their faces to us. Power also needs to be able to use, the educational level of l / s is low.
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 27 March 2014 16: 07
        +2
        % of educated people in the armies of the world can lead?
        Primary, secondary, special, higher?
      2. Saboteur
        Saboteur 28 March 2014 05: 30
        0
        The level of education in the US troops is higher than yours. Without a diploma, they do not take to the service. And where did you find that the potential does not come out. The military revenue of US soldiers is higher than that of a Russian soldier with one year of training.
      3. Saboteur
        Saboteur 28 March 2014 05: 30
        0
        The level of education in the US troops is higher than yours. Without a diploma, they do not take to the service. And where did you find that the potential does not come out. The military revenue of US soldiers is higher than that of a Russian soldier with one year of training.
        1. philip
          philip 28 March 2014 05: 38
          0
          Dityatko, with an Amer’s diploma, just wipe his ass, and it won’t work, they print it on bad paper.
    4. Andrey from Tver
      Andrey from Tver 27 March 2014 12: 58
      +2
      The Science of Winning American wassat
      1. Lvovich
        Lvovich 27 March 2014 19: 59
        -1
        Yeah, and half the United States Army p_e_d_i_k_i
        1. Saboteur
          Saboteur 28 March 2014 05: 32
          0
          And half of the army of the Russian Federation
          1. E.S.A.
            E.S.A. 28 October 2019 20: 10
            0
            Quote: Saboteur
            And half of the army of the Russian Federation

            Nothing like this - soldiers do a lot of bad things for drinking alcohol, from pumping to sending to diesel. Thumping only ahvitsery and kontra.
            But anyway, it is better to thump than to inject - the Wehrmacht veterans who had been on drugs since the pre-war era ended six months after the start of the war.
        2. Saboteur
          Saboteur 28 March 2014 05: 32
          0
          And half of the army of the Russian Federation
          1. philip
            philip 28 March 2014 05: 40
            0
            Dityatko you would go from the mudflow.
  5. olegkrava
    olegkrava 27 March 2014 08: 32
    0
    Quote: Keeper
    The more sugary conditions they have in the army, the weaker the spirit!

    They could not fight without ice cream and salad with a burger.
    1. Name
      Name 27 March 2014 11: 14
      +1
      Amers weakness in hypertrophied love of comfort.
  6. Weniamin
    Weniamin 27 March 2014 08: 36
    0
    A disgrace. Tank paint paint was not found.
    1. SkiF_RnD
      SkiF_RnD 27 March 2014 12: 36
      0
      More of these pictures. And then camouflage in the eyes of our shkolota gives American technology + 100% firepower. Yes, and yoba design! Ideally, you need more pictures where there are unplanned holes on the sides of such tanks. This will be optimal for education. hi
    2. Saboteur
      Saboteur 28 March 2014 05: 34
      0
      You are right, you must know how to paint your fences and summer cottages.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  7. vst6
    vst6 27 March 2014 08: 37
    +5
    What kind of army is it where women, gays, transgender people serve, they won’t be able to go into battle without manicure.
  8. kvnvolga2008
    kvnvolga2008 27 March 2014 08: 38
    +4
    The structure of the US Armed Forces suggests that their military doctrine is essentially aggressive!
    1. rauffg
      rauffg 27 March 2014 18: 01
      -1
      the main thing is not to get captured by these pi ...
  9. UVB
    UVB 27 March 2014 08: 40
    -1
    the combat power of the ground forces remains very high, they are guaranteed to surpass in the foreseeable future any army in the world, except the Chinese.
    ??? What about combat readiness? Mattress makers in general, with a force ratio of less than 10: 1, are not able to fight.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 27 March 2014 16: 14
      +1
      Give the balance of power in the 1991 Iraq War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Afghan War.
  10. The comment was deleted.
  11. VADEL
    VADEL 27 March 2014 08: 49
    +1
    Vanushka Susanina to help them. One is enough, I think. smile
  12. 77bob1973
    77bob1973 27 March 2014 09: 02
    -1
    That is why they do not pull against us, the ground forces are the basis of our armed forces, and the territory is only then considered to be captured when the foot of the infantryman sets foot on it. We win when we die!
  13. erased
    erased 27 March 2014 09: 15
    +2
    In the United States there was no era of collapse, and therefore the army is large and powerful and funding at the highest level. And the army of Russia has a long way to go. And the main thing is not to stop here, otherwise you will never reach the proper level.
  14. Sergey Sitnikov
    Sergey Sitnikov 27 March 2014 09: 44
    +1
    Quote: erased
    In the United States there was no era of collapse, and therefore the army is large and powerful and funding at the highest level. And the army of Russia has a long way to go. And the main thing is not to stop here, otherwise you will never reach the proper level.

    Of course there was no collapse))), which really printed there green wrappers and paid salaries
  15. Barakuda
    Barakuda 27 March 2014 09: 56
    +7
    Impressive. But I repeat - in the entire history, the United States fought only with an obviously weak enemy and in almost complete superiority. Try to explain to the US infantryman what a trench that he dug himself does not wash for 2 weeks, there is no hot water, and 3 km to crawl to a local stream. necessary. And the helicopter will not fly after him, since 5 pieces are already lying nearby, without reaching. - He will hang ... This is not a counter strike at all. The bombing can be understood, but until the infantryman enters the house, the war continues.
    Where does a bunch of unbalanced retirees come from after Iraq and Afghanistan, only the US government is silent about it. Our "Afghan syndrome" is resting compared to the United States.
  16. Barakuda
    Barakuda 27 March 2014 10: 03
    +3
    The rules of the TRP were correctly revived by Vova. Not to hell with youth sitting at a computer and hanging out at taverns.
  17. itr
    itr 27 March 2014 10: 14
    +5
    Divisions remain the main type of formationsinteresting ! and then there was a time people squeaked for brigades! by the way half here with marshal's epaulettes)))))))
    1. Barakuda
      Barakuda 27 March 2014 10: 22
      +2
      Well, not half, rating is easy. Here and ordinary clever thoughts push.
    2. Evgan
      Evgan 27 March 2014 10: 42
      +2
      Yes, but their divisions in this case mainly consist of brigades, not regiments.
      1. itr
        itr 27 March 2014 11: 03
        +1
        Well, everyone here shouted that the brigade is more mobile than the division)))))) but it turns out that the brigade is part of the division
        And who doesn’t know, I’ll hint the difference between the regiment and brigade in the number of people and materiel there are more
        that in the brigade that there are battalions in the regiment)))))))))))))) from the change of places of the terms the amount does not change
    3. E.S.A.
      E.S.A. 28 October 2019 20: 18
      0
      Quote: itr
      The main type of formations remain divisions interesting! and then there was a time the people squeaked for the brigades! by the way, half here with marshal's shoulder straps)))))))
      The American brigades, in essence, as they were equivalent to the Soviet tank / motorized rifle regiments, they remain the same, the only difference is in the military and tactical forces.
  18. makrus
    makrus 27 March 2014 10: 42
    +1
    At the beginning of February I saw the film "The Survivor". Which, on the whole, left a positive impression. And since the film is based on "real events", it naturally went to the Internet and clarified the "details". There was no chapel to disappointment. I do not think that the American Ranger will die without "toilet paper", but there is nothing to add to this: http: //www.bratishka.ru/archiv/2010/1/2010_1_14.php
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 27 March 2014 13: 25
      +1
      Quote: makrus
      I do not think that the American Ranger will die without "toilet paper", but there is nothing to add to this: http: //www.bratishka.ru/archiv/2010/1/2010_1_14.php

      The example you quoted reflects the stupidity of the American command, but does not mean the cowardice of the fighters themselves. If they were cowards, they would simply stop performing the task and cause evacuation to leave the dangerous area while remaining alive.
  19. Barakuda
    Barakuda 27 March 2014 11: 00
    +1
    Quote: EvgAn
    Yes, but their divisions in this case mainly consist of brigades, not regiments.

    Because they plan to fight not on their own land - like mobility. and 40% are not US citizens. For example, Hurricanes will be hit, and they will quickly want to go home, to Mexico, Africa ..
  20. raven75
    raven75 27 March 2014 11: 14
    +6
    The US Army, unlike the stronger in spirit compared to today's, was blown away in Vietnam. Almost 60000 killed, 2500 shot down planes and helicopters (officially recognized by the United States, well, ours did their best). All, the United States wiped out and got away, with all its monstrous superiority in weapons and equipment. All the same, a lot depends on the people, on their spirit. In Vietnam, even ours were a little naughty from the recklessness of the Vietnamese. For example, to thrust a rocket into the jungle, among the trees ... Where to start it ??? No, they tie ropes to the treetops, sit in a bunch and at the decisive moment these trees are pushed apart. C-75 goes up, some "Phantom", a bunch of debris, down. After a while, ours supported the Arabs, during their war with Israel ... These same Arabs had to be kept under the barrel so that they would not run away from the launchers, warriors, damn it. It all depends on the people. And it's not about faith. During the Second World War, for example, Christians-Western Ukrainians, Muslim Chechens with Ingush and Crimean Tatars, Buddhists-Kalmyks-stepped under Hitler. Whereas OTHER-Russians, Belarusians, Eastern Ukrainians, etc., are Christians. Kazan Tatars, Kazakhs, the Muslim peoples of Central Asia and a good half of the Buddhist peoples of Siberia categorically disagreed with Hitler. How Hitler ended up, everyone knows. America will finish with that.
    1. SkiF_RnD
      SkiF_RnD 27 March 2014 12: 40
      0
      US losses in Vietnam are underestimated. But as always.
      1. Saboteur
        Saboteur 28 March 2014 05: 40
        0
        Are you one of those who claim that the US in Korea lost 300, Vietnam 000 and Iraq 200 correctly?
      2. The comment was deleted.
    2. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 27 March 2014 16: 08
      +2
      Now bring the loss of the Vietnamese, stuffed with our weapons.
      Underestimating the enemy often leads to disaster.
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 27 March 2014 17: 36
        +2
        Quote: BlackMokona
        Now bring the loss of the Vietnamese, stuffed with our weapons.

        You are exaggerating, to put it mildly. The Vietnamese had Soviet weapons, but we are not talking about any "stuffing".
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 28 March 2014 07: 22
          0
          Yes, yes, all these armada of twinks, complexes C, mountains of Kalashnikov assault rifles, etc. they grew on trees there wink
          And so the troops of North Vietnam lost more than 1.1 million dead, moreover, according to statements by the authorities of North Vietnam.
          The United States and all its allies, including the troops of South Vietnam, lost 315.85 thousand soldiers.
          There are also losses from China, the DPRK and the USSR in this war. However, the data on their losses is difficult to find reliable, given that they all were not officially there.
          China reported about 1 thousand dead, the USSR about 13 dead, North Korea does not say anything about the losses.
          That is, if we take the losses of the Americans and their allies, against the losses of only North Vietnam, then the ratio is 3.48 times, in favor of the United States.
          1. SkiF_RnD
            SkiF_RnD 28 March 2014 18: 02
            0
            Are you comparing arms assistance and extremely limited Soviet military involvement with the role of mattress mats in the Vietnam War? So after all, the Americans themselves fought against the Vietnamese there, this is nonsense, it doesn't matter, right? As soon as they transferred their "business" to the South Vietnamese, they quickly merged.
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 29 March 2014 08: 11
              0
              The argument was how much these very mattresses know how to fight.
              Thanks to our weapons, Soviet training, etc., the technical level of North Vietnam was no worse than the level of the United States.
              However, the ratio of losses of the United States and all its allies against the losses of northern Vietnam is already 3.48 in favor of the United States. Thus, if we do not suddenly recognize the Vietnamese as complete idiots in military affairs, we must admit that the United States is very good at fighting. And what, they couldn’t politically throw nuclear warheads, they’re not poisoned with herbicides, but sarin or occupy North Vietnam, this is not a military problem, but politicians. Not to mention that for the size of the American Army and its population, casualties are ridiculous, but politics.
              And the fact that the South Vietnamese could not cope alone, against all of Southeast Asia, there were no questions.
  21. Ermek
    Ermek 27 March 2014 11: 23
    +1
    There is no need to maintain numerous ground units, since they are successfully replaced by militants of various radical terrorist groups
  22. polite people
    polite people 27 March 2014 11: 29
    +1
    Infantry is the queen of the fields. But no one in their army wants to lie in the damp earth. And we have to arrange for the enemies many pits - we are a peaceful people - this is a simple matter. And they guess about it, but not quite.
  23. Barakuda
    Barakuda 27 March 2014 11: 53
    0
    Quote: raven75
    The United States Army, unmatched in spirit, was blown away in Vietnam compared to today. Almost 60000 dead, 2500 downed planes and helicopters (officially recognized by the United States, well, here we tried)

    Our air defense personnel were carried there, my dad took part in the Arab conflict (the first "red star") earned -2-Phantom- "arrow" - then they were planted with shilki at very low heights.
  24. mitya24
    mitya24 27 March 2014 12: 01
    +10
    That’s what, and we always had enough hatred. in the 13th century, the Mongols were underestimated, in the 20th century, the Japs, etc. etc. examples of the mass. The enemy must be respected and prepared for the worst, and not asserted that our battalion of conscripts will roll out their battalion. Much more needs to be done to make the Russian army even closer in its potential to the Soviet-style army of the 70-80s.
  25. ole_ga
    ole_ga 27 March 2014 13: 38
    +1
    But who argues, the enemy needs to be overestimated in general, but can you just poke fun?
  26. lukke
    lukke 27 March 2014 14: 08
    0
    The main type of formations remain divisions, each of which currently includes four line brigades and an army aviation brigade
    But in our country, Mlyn Taburetkin made brigades out of divisions, and it turns out, comparing with amers, he lowered the combat power roughly three times, mu.d.a.k.
  27. misham1978
    misham1978 27 March 2014 14: 16
    +1
    I heard about the ships in the SV for the first time. Comments on the article are completely haphazard. Yes, we are one of them. The US Army is a very serious enemy. They fight successfully and competently. the misfortune of their armies is that they take too much care of their people. This common misfortune of all Western civilization is the desire for contactless wars. The Air Force and the Navy take everything to the damn grandmother, the rest will go to the Marines and the US Army as a snack, but their strategists considered it too expensive to form an invasion army from the "rebels" with the help of PMCs. The main problem is not to defeat the army and the hostile state as a whole (the flag over the presidential palace), and then what to do with the captured territory and the hostile population. The best war is the one that did not take place
  28. lukich1958
    lukich1958 27 March 2014 14: 18
    0
    I absolutely agree with raven75! Once Americanos hegemony comes to an end and it will be scary if they certainly do not stop in time ....
  29. DimYang
    DimYang 27 March 2014 14: 45
    0
    Well, you can't treat the enemy from the position of shapkozakidatelstva, like some (most likely they did not even serve, but from those who served gunpowder they did not smell.) Guaranteed defeat. There is an ancient wisdom "Do not boast going to the army, but boast walking from the army" (if anyone has anything, then FROM RATI it just sounds fun)
  30. Prutkov
    Prutkov 27 March 2014 16: 32
    +2
    The army learns in battle. And in this regard, the Americans are ahead of the rest. Therefore, it is not necessary to underestimate their "combat stability". Yes, and we must return to the divisional format. The regiment, the brigade fight, and the division plans and provides for the battle.
  31. mitya24
    mitya24 27 March 2014 17: 09
    +1
    Quote: Rods
    The army learns in battle. And in this regard, the Americans are ahead of the rest. Therefore, it is not necessary to underestimate their "combat stability". Yes, and we must return to the divisional format. The regiment, the brigade fight, and the division plans and provides for the battle.

    So an American battle is a keystroke. In this, yes they succeeded. And large military operations remained in the distant past (Vietnam)
  32. homosum20
    homosum20 27 March 2014 17: 16
    0
    So the Americans did not capture a single country. Everywhere they broke, after a while they flew out like a cork from a bottle.
    Only the land on which the infantry passed can be considered their own.
    America's actions are the actions of a robber. He attacked, filled a sack, and carried off his legs. Nah ... FIG them army.
    But the Amers do not have their own land. And the states they took from the Indians of the Tseva without a referendum.
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 27 March 2014 20: 00
      +1
      Quote: homosum20
      Everywhere they broke, after a while they flew out like a cork from a bottle.

      Quote: homosum20
      But the Amers do not have their own land. And the states they took from the Indians of the Tseva without a referendum.


      In my opinion, you are contradicting yourself. They would think before speaking.
  33. Leshka
    Leshka 27 March 2014 17: 20
    0
    In case of war with Russia, they will be useful to them.