Military Review

America's infantrymen are not ready to fight

58
America's infantrymen are not ready to fight


Currently, the US Army is not ready for future wars. Such a conclusion was made by some US military experts from speeches by a number of high-ranking Pentagon officials at a regular meeting of members of the Association of the US Army held in mid-October.

The Association is a private organization that provides the necessary support to existing military personnel, representatives of the National Guard and the US Army reserve, disabled people, veterans and their families, as well as employees. Commenting on the speeches of the Pentagon and SV leaders, analysts identified several reasons that would not allow the US Army to win victories in future wars.

Lack of political and military culture

According to American experts, today one of the main reasons preventing the US Armed Forces from effectively performing their tasks in future wars is the lack of an effective political and military culture among military personnel of various ranks and parliamentarians who make final decisions on military construction.

When the initiator of the creation of a fully volunteer aircraft, the future US President Richard Nixon 18 of October 1968, promised in one of his speeches to completely abandon military service after the Vietnam War, no one in the Pentagon or Congress could understand that military personnel of such aircraft can completely lose the moral motives of voluntary service to their Fatherland.

Then none of the politicians and the military said a single word that the contract army would actually consist of mercenaries, that is, people whose main motive for their activities would be only financial prospects and benefits, and not loyalty to the Fatherland, which must be protected.

In June, 1974-th all types of the US Armed Forces announced the 100-percent staffing of their states with contract soldiers. But then none of the politicians and the military even imagined that the next time statements about such an achievement could appear only in 2009, that is, 35 years after the implementation of Nixon's idea.

In fact, in the implementation of this direction of the construction of the Armed Forces, American politicians and the military faced enormous problems and more than once considered the issue of returning to the conscription. Back in the early 80s, Richard Nixon said that he "made a big mistake when he canceled the call." And the influential American magazine “Yu.S. The News & World Report noted in early 1982 that "when Reagan came to power 16 months ago, many analysts dismissed the volunteer army as an impossible undertaking." Currently, the possibility of such a situation has been fully confirmed. Today, the relevant recruiting services of the Ground Forces manage to complete military units with great difficulty.

Obviously, in the context of a reduction in the military budget, the MoD will not have enough funds not only to increase the expenditures on personnel maintenance at an annual pace, taken after 2001, but most likely even to maintain them at the current level. In the 2011 year, allocations for the maintenance of personnel were increased by 1,4% and were the lowest since 1973. But in 2010, this figure was 3,9%.

In various types and kinds of troops, the US Armed Forces today serve less than 1% of the American population. And out of every five US parliamentarians, only one ever did military service. Thus, when the leadership of the Army warns them that reducing military spending leads to a reduction in the combat readiness of the troops, most congressmen and senators do not attach any importance to the fact that the privileges that their military voters should receive should be preserved. They are not fully aware of the threats to America from the outside, they feel safe and do not understand what a negative impact in military conditions, insufficient training of personnel and the lack of necessary material and technical support can have on the outcome of hostilities. Lawmakers, of course, are taking some measures to keep the number of troops on the required scale and somehow preserve their benefits. However, the majority of senators and congressmen are not so much concerned with the victory in a future war, as with the desire to secure the votes of military voters and win regular elections.

The main pillars on which the Pentagon’s military strength rests are the training of personnel and weaponbased on the latest technology. The armies of many countries have a large number of personnel, but none of them can compare with the US military in terms of the professional training of personnel and the level of equipment with modern weapons and military equipment (IWT).

However, the technological superiority of the US military is getting closer and closer to its end. This, according to a number of US military experts, is explained by the fact that since the reign of Ronald Reagan, each successive president has relied on increasing the number of privileges for military specialists, and not on modernizing the Armed Forces as a whole.

Today, the CB budget allocated for the purchase of new weapons and military equipment is one tenth of the federal budget. In recent years, one after another, the programs of creating and purchasing the next generation IWT have been shut down, since there were not enough funds to implement them. The leaders of this type of US Armed Forces believe that adequate funding for the development of new technologies will not start before the middle of the next decade. In this regard, some concerned with the state of the military policy in Washington believe that it is likely that countries like China can create military technologies that are not inferior to those of the United States.

Underestimation of reserve components personnel

Most of the American soldiers and officers included in the lists of the Ministry of Interior, does not serve in the regular troops. They are part of the army reserve and the National Guard. These categories of soldiers cost the Pentagon much cheaper than the personnel of the regular troops, since they are allocated less funds for health care and solving housing problems. In addition, they receive fewer retirement benefits. Military personnel of this category are used by the Defense Ministry to replenish military units that perform combat missions, or in cases where it is necessary to provide assistance to the Ministry of Homeland Security, the police and other federal agencies in the elimination of natural disasters, in the event of social unrest and in other emergency situations.

About 300 thousand representatives of the army reserve and the Air Force National Guard were called up for active service during the war in Iraq. However, at present, the US Armed Forces, due to a reduction in allocations, are experiencing serious difficulties in recruiting troops with reserve components. A representative of the New American Security Center, retired Lieutenant General David Barno, who led the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan in 2003 – 2005, recently stated that in this situation, National Guard specialists have higher professional skills, for example, in areas such as cyber security than their regular counterparts. He also noted that in the near future professional readiness may become significantly higher, and they will have greater combat skills than regular servicemen. However, the full combat potential of the reserve troops, the general stressed, cannot be used as long as the leadership of the Ground Forces and other types of armed forces treat such servicemen as rivals, and not as partners.

Gaps in military strategy

Experts believe that one of the weakest points of the Pentagon’s military strategy, which has been in force for the past few years, is that the leaders clearly ignore the need for subordinate soldiers and officers of the regular forces to learn the customs and languages ​​of those states whose security has been called upon to ensure America. If the troops have no idea about the customs and customs of the peoples they protect and do not speak their languages, then they will certainly make tragic mistakes during the conduct of hostilities. And it will be inevitable and will always occur in cases where political leaders, having exhausted all other means of resolving conflicts with other countries and not having the desired results, will consider the “soldier's boot” as the final argument in resolving conflicts. At the same time, by their actions they do not give fighters the opportunity to get acquainted with those countries in whose territory they must fight.

In the US Armed Forces are trained professionals who must serve outside of America. They are taught regional geography, they study the culture and learn the languages ​​of the peoples in whose territory they will stay for a set period of time. However, such servicemen, after receiving the relevant diplomas, as a rule, work in embassies, are not included in the combat units and are not directly involved in combat operations.

Over the considerable time that has passed since the tragic attacks of al-Qaida fighters on America 11 September 2001, very few specialists in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia have appeared in the combat units of the Pentagon.

At the beginning of last year, the Pentagon leadership created from the Army, Marine Corps and Special Operations Command specialists a Specialized Group on the strategy of wars in land theaters. The experts of the group found that the successful outcome of operations in such wars and victory in them can largely depend on how well in advance of the outbreak of hostilities the corresponding military contingents were redeployed to regions of future conflicts. If you introduce the practice of sending relevant units to the sites of future military operations long before the outbreak of the conflict, they will be able to establish contacts with the local population and collect all the necessary intelligence information for the subsequent successful conduct of the necessary operations. However, such a strategy, in the opinion of specialists, will require from the NE commanders to constantly maintain the possibility of sending troops to regions where they currently have no immediate need. And in modern conditions, the sequestration of the military budget is simply impossible. Apparently, the American Army will remain in this state for many more years.

Lacks of education and training of personnel

At the present stage, the US Army and its reserve components are staffed by sufficiently educated and internally motivated soldiers who have their own views on staying in the army. However, the general approaches of the relevant training and educational bodies of the SV often affect the views of their subordinates within the framework of established practice, which does not fully correspond to the full range of potential threats to US national security. Today, some servicemen have already ceased to formulate and direct command of their requirements for the weapons they need, which were sometimes too high and even impracticable. Other fighters have ceased to study future threats to America, which do not fully comply with the established training and army education priorities. In this regard, the future instructors of soldiers of the SV should use a completely new, non-orthodox toolkit of training and education of military personnel.

Currently, the main problem for the leadership of the US Army in preparing for future wars is the lack of adequate funding. And although a whole range of military construction tasks facing him can be effectively solved with the involvement of a minimal amount of additional funds, experts say, it is extremely important that regardless of whether the law on budget control remains in effect or changed, in the foreseeable future, the Army will not have enough resources for manning, training and arming its units. The preamble to the New Operational Concept of the Army, published in early October of this year, states that the Army will have “sufficient resources to maintain the combat readiness, the required structure of units and carry out the modernization necessary to ensure that all requirements of the national strategy are met. security. " However, such statements are emotional, not realistic, experts say. This was confirmed by the Chief of Staff of the US Army, General Raymond Odierno. He said that, owing to the lack of funds, HR must move from collective to individual training of servicemen. However, according to him, the combat readiness of the Army is increasing at a very low rate. The general also noted that the Ground Forces should receive all the necessary allocations to ensure combat readiness each year, but noted with distress that "this apparently will not happen."

According to experts, the leaders of the Army should become more entrepreneurial in carrying out activities to ensure preparedness for future wars. They should also explain to politicians who are not very well oriented in military matters, what ultimately would mean for American citizens a situation when the US Army will not be able to conduct combat operations in the upcoming wars.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.ng.ru/armies/2014-10-29/8_army.html
58 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Denis
    Denis 1 November 2014 08: 04
    +16
    THAT'S ANY UNMATCHING! To them with all my heart lol
    Pampers and ice cream are delivered; chapel fagots were allowed to marry ...
    Just serve and rejoice

    Yes, they always fought with tongues or with other hands
    1. Afinogen
      Afinogen 1 November 2014 08: 08
      +15
      They do not understand that there is such a word "must", it is easier with us laughing


      1. Dormidont2
        Dormidont2 1 November 2014 12: 14
        +9
        until the Americans are ready, then there will be no war, the whole world must wait and prepare when the Americans start the war ... it's time to end this evil empire, with the methods that they used to destroy the USSR (traitors, economic undermining, incitement to internal conflicts in the USA, etc.)
        1. ATATA
          ATATA 1 November 2014 14: 21
          +5
          Quote: Dormidont2
          until the Americans are ready, then there will be no war

          Do you think that in 1941 Hitler was completely sure that he was ready to fight the USSR?
          Readiness for war is perfection!
          This is the direction of travel, but not the end point.
          It is not possible to achieve, everything is relative.
          1. MolGro
            MolGro 1 November 2014 14: 42
            +3
            Hitler was sure) that's for sure!
            And the Wehrmacht troops were ready much better than the United States.
            They were going to fight!
            1. Denis
              Denis 1 November 2014 16: 33
              +1
              Quote: MolGro
              Wehrmacht troops were ready much better than the usa

              And even though their supreme is also the same ... but at least the troops did not welcome with a glass
        2. kostiknet
          kostiknet 1 November 2014 23: 58
          +5
          Quote: Dormidont2
          it's time to end this evil empire

          start with that?
    2. Lukich
      Lukich 1 November 2014 16: 13
      +2
      Yes, and you can dress according to who you think you are))))
  2. shurup
    shurup 1 November 2014 08: 16
    +13
    The US infantry is designed to carry out liberation and occupation missions at the final stage of wars and, preferably, against an unarmed and psychologically broken enemy. Here, let the Pentagoners not be hypocrites, and the accompanying trade in cigarettes and other consumer goods - the US infantry is always ready.
    In fact, the United States prefers remote wars.
    1. Iline
      Iline 1 November 2014 10: 07
      +6
      Analysts have identified several reasons that will not allow the US Army to win victories in future wars.

      All the reasons given in the article of course have a place to be, but it seems to me that the main motivation in refusing to fight is still in the absence of this very motivation. Who is interested, at the first shout from Washington, to abandon everything in his native States and rush headlong to the ends of the world to expose his head to the bullets based on the "wants" of the Washington boys. Such concepts as "you bring democracy", "liberate the country from the tyrant", etc. are no longer rolled. Even in the American army, many have a head, and in it brains. And they understand that the money you earned is not needed by the dead, especially if you die not your own Florida, for example, but for an unfamiliar Middle Eastern uncle (also for example).
  3. The comment was deleted.
  4. cobalt
    cobalt 1 November 2014 09: 29
    +17
    I hope that the degradation of the US Army will continue to increase. Good luck to them in this.
    1. rodevaan
      rodevaan 2 November 2014 07: 38
      +1
      - And we will help in this :))) I think the GDP is growing its Tagged in the territory of a potential enemy)))
    2. the47th
      the47th 4 November 2014 12: 45
      0
      And Pedivikia says that the V-1B can drag cruise missiles of as many as 3 types:
      16 × AGM-129 (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-129_ACM)
      24 × AGM-86 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-86)
      24 × AGM-158 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158_JASSM)
      AGM-129 and AGM-86 are medium-range missiles.
  5. shimus
    shimus 1 November 2014 09: 36
    +15
    At times, the commanders themselves cannot cope with our army, which the Yankees are so dirty before!
    I saw a competition of special forces of the armies of the world, in particular ours, the USA and Germany. I kissed with laughter! A US soldier, to overcome a water obstacle with mandatory diving under a reinforced concrete slab, took off his rifle and boots, only then dived, then returned and put everything back on. Our guys, as they fled with the AKS behind their backs, so jumped from the run into this ditch !!!
    What are you talking about!!! What infantry, brave warriors we only see in the movies and see, it has nothing to do with reality!
  6. cobalt
    cobalt 1 November 2014 09: 41
    +9
    By the way, one interesting video about the vinigret head of the Americans from Russia.
  7. sv68
    sv68 1 November 2014 09: 43
    +4
    in general, the usa is not ready to fight with an enemy more or less equal in strength and ability, only with banana republics, they get something and then if the authorities there are already bought with giblets. even during the Great Patriotic War the Germans beat Americans as they wanted because then the Yankees had an army that wasn’t contract-just the ability to fight in life and in a comic strip or a movie on which the Americans brought up the giant difference.
    1. rodevaan
      rodevaan 2 November 2014 07: 40
      +1
      Quote: sv68
      in general, the usa is not ready to fight with an enemy more or less equal in strength and capabilities


      - If you were ready, then they would have climbed on us long ago, be sure.
  8. Prager
    Prager 1 November 2014 09: 46
    0
    without toilet paper, ice cream and Coca-Cola, they are not able to fight.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 1 November 2014 10: 34
      +6
      And you can without toilet paper? In the summer, you can also wipe the burdock, but in winter? I will tell you the terrible truth: our soldiers also use toilet paper. They just buy it for their money. Together with ice cream and Coca-Cola.

      I honestly do not quite understand this tendency to be proud that our soldier is poorly provided.
      1. smile
        smile 1 November 2014 12: 45
        +5
        Lopatov
        Yes ... and I still want to blurt out that for all this "terrible weakness", the US army is still stronger than ours. Simply stronger and capable of performing such tasks that ours will not be capable of for a long time, if ever at all. Yes, our armed forces have different tasks, yes, they cannot conquer us, and they will not do it - they are not so adorable ... but let them at least shoot me, they are stronger, and we should not forget about it follows.
        1. smile
          smile 1 November 2014 15: 17
          0
          smile
          Dissatisfied with my statement, I want to inform you that our Armed Forces are not in a position to wage a full-scale regional war on another continent, and the number of our Armed Forces is great inferior to the Americans, and we are half as much. Who will say that this is not so - please, together with the stone to communicate the arguments - I agree with them with pleasure .... if there is, with what to agree. :)))
          1. rodevaan
            rodevaan 2 November 2014 07: 50
            0
            Quote: smile
            smile
            Dissatisfied with my statement, I want to inform you that our Armed Forces are not in a position to wage a full-scale regional war on another continent, and the number of our Armed Forces is great inferior to the Americans, and we are half as much. Who will say that this is not so - please, together with the stone to communicate the arguments - I agree with them with pleasure .... if there is, with what to agree. :)))


            - The first argument is at least the fact that in just 5 days the local "troops" were dispersed in Georgia prepared by the pirates. And on the 6th they would have occupied all of Georgia, if they wanted to. The second argument - when were you in the army? In the 90s? If your views are still from there - then yes, then the army is not so much with the Americans - but in a local war it would be stuck up to its ears. Now the situation is completely different - salaries, equipment, support - everything has gone to a completely different level.
            I repeat - if the Americans were sure that they would crush us, they would have done it "in the name of dermocracy" long ago, and would have announced to the whole world, like Hitler or Napoleon once, that "they are saving Western civilization" from "Russian barbarians" ...
        2. Lopatov
          Lopatov 1 November 2014 16: 40
          0
          Stronger, not stronger I will not discuss. Here, like children, "and who is cooler, a whale or an elephant"

          But the fact that training their infantryman is dozens of times better than ours is a reality. I hope so far.
          1. smile
            smile 1 November 2014 20: 04
            +2
            Lopatov
            :))) I wrote stronger, just so as not to "discuss". Objectively, the combat potential of their Armed Forces is higher.
          2. rodevaan
            rodevaan 2 November 2014 07: 54
            +6
            Quote: Spade
            Stronger, not stronger I will not discuss. Here, like children, "and who is cooler, a whale or an elephant"

            But the fact that training their infantryman is dozens of times better than ours is a reality. I hope so far.


            - Not preparation, but provision. Equipping helmets, armors and night vision cameras, stuffing a duffel bag with chocolates and diapers is completely different from preparing a highly professional fighter who can fight without all this heap of rubbish. These are 2 different things. Yes, a lot of rubbish is needed - but this is not a panacea. A trained and well-motivated fighter in a simple quilted jacket will roll into a rubyroid a bunch of chocolate fighters who have no motivation and training is at least not much worse than that of this fighter. And history has proved this to our Western "partners" more than once. If their training was not only stronger, but at least not much worse than ours, then their infantry would not be able to conduct at least military operations against the mujahideen in Afghanistan, and not hide in bunkers.
            Do not believe it, but there, in Omerik, they say exactly the same things as here - they scold their army and believe that the best preparation is with us. Not once I heard it myself.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 2 November 2014 11: 41
              +1
              It is the preparation. Their companion is better prepared than our average infantryman.

              Quote: rodevaan
              If their training was not only stronger, but at least not much worse than ours, their infantry would not be able to carry out at least military operations against the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, and not hide in bunkers.

              And who told you that they are "hiding"? This is not true
            2. GLUHOI
              GLUHOI 3 November 2014 22: 22
              0
              - Not preparation - but provision. To equip helmets, armor plates and night-vision cameras, to stuff a stuff bag with chocolates and diapers is not at all what to prepare a highly professional fighter who is able to fight without all this heap of rubbish. winked That's for sure!!! I always tell my fighters this !!! But how enviably looking at them !!! And we have to buy everything for our money and all the little things! It's a shame yes! We would have to equip them ... fellow
        3. rodevaan
          rodevaan 2 November 2014 07: 45
          +3
          Quote: smile
          Lopatov
          Yes ... and I still want to blurt out that for all this "terrible weakness", the US army is still stronger than ours. Simply stronger and capable of performing such tasks that ours will not be capable of for a long time, if ever at all. Yes, our armed forces have different tasks, yes, they cannot conquer us, and they will not do it - they are not so adorable ... but let them at least shoot me, they are stronger, and we should not forget about it follows.


          - They would be sure that they are stronger - believe me, our country would not exist long ago. Now they would spray democracy here from the air. These are not my words, these are people who have served in intelligence and are not the last to relate to security agencies. We are the only country capable of destroying the United States in any clash - local or global. And they are well aware of this. And our army is quite capable of defeating them, even if we have less money and equipment than they have in this matter.
        4. forester
          forester 2 November 2014 14: 13
          +2
          Quote: smile
          Lopatov
          Yes ... and I still want to blurt out that for all this "terrible weakness", the US army is still stronger than ours. Simply stronger and capable of performing such tasks that ours will not be capable of for a long time, if ever at all. Yes, our armed forces have different tasks, yes, they cannot conquer us, and they will not do it - they are not so adorable ... but let them at least shoot me, they are stronger, and we should not forget about it follows.

          technically yes - but the fighting qualities of the American infantry trained in computer simulations are none
      2. Gecko
        Gecko 1 November 2014 18: 28
        +4
        I can say from my own experience that for 2 years in the army in the 90s that in the location that I didn’t see toilet paper at the landfills ... The assistant for educational work lamented that all the newspapers and books from the red corner went to ..., well you get the point. winked
        We are not proud that we are poorly provided, but that we steadfastly endure the hardships and deprivations of military service and get out of difficult situations using dexterity and ingenuity.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 1 November 2014 19: 20
          +1
          Quote: gecko
          I can say from my own experience that for 2 years in the army in 90's, that in the arrangement that at the landfills I have never seen toilet paper

          You had shitty commanders. Mine always had toilet paper.
          1. GLUHOI
            GLUHOI 3 November 2014 22: 24
            0
            Well, at least paper for cleaning weapons! wink
      3. rodevaan
        rodevaan 2 November 2014 07: 42
        +1
        Quote: Spade
        I honestly do not quite understand this tendency to be proud that our soldier is poorly provided.


        - When was the last time you were in the army? In the 96th? I have many who are serving there now - what are you talking about? The salaries are now in our army — more than what will be in Geyrostan — and the soldiers are already provided with many, not like some kind of toilet paper. Get out of the 90s, those days are gone.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 2 November 2014 11: 43
          +1
          I quit at the beginning of 8 years, major. I speak with skill.
        2. Whale
          Whale 4 November 2014 04: 36
          0
          1 set of uniform for 1 year. Is this normal provision?
        3. The comment was deleted.
  9. Dragon-y
    Dragon-y 1 November 2014 10: 28
    +1
    Are we going to make the same mistake? (with our contract army ... I read that many "contract soldiers" plan to "quit, if anything" ..)
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 1 November 2014 10: 45
      0
      Quote: Dragon-y
      with our contract army ... I've read that many "contract soldiers" are planning to "quit, if anything."

      Do you have it in Kazakhstan?
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 1 November 2014 11: 19
        +1
        Minus instead of the answer? Original.
  10. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 1 November 2014 11: 11
    +1
    Obama cuts military budget for several years in a row to
    reduce federal debt. Hence these problems.
    Ground forces were significantly reduced.
    However, aviation, navy and strategic forces are funded normally.
  11. 31rus
    31rus 1 November 2014 11: 27
    0
    The topic is interesting, you need to learn from mistakes, contractors are certainly good, but there is no motivation, only money and benefits, therefore, ideological education here must be carried out very carefully and not so much in the army, but by and large from birth
  12. Zlyden.Zlo
    Zlyden.Zlo 1 November 2014 12: 12
    0
    It is necessary to designate the enemy, then cry that the army is all in fornication and collapse ... And now the most important thing is, BABLO MONEY BACKS TUGRIKS GIVE ... AND MORE FOR MORE
  13. Hell's Angel
    Hell's Angel 1 November 2014 12: 18
    +3
    Noticed HOW did they answer? Guessing game. These are the results of the education system that we have introduced. USE is nothing more than a guessing game.
  14. Steel loli
    Steel loli 1 November 2014 13: 07
    0
    Recalling the recent case of the Ukrainian infantry fighting vehicle on our border, I can say: it’s not for us to laugh at the Americans.
  15. spech
    spech 1 November 2014 16: 44
    0
    Currently, the main problem for the leadership of the US Army in preparing for future wars is the lack of adequate funding.

    So many letters were written for this. fellow
  16. Bakht
    Bakht 1 November 2014 17: 53
    +10
    When were they ready to fight? The most famous example from history is the landing in Sicily. They gathered a million-strong army of hundreds of ships and thousands of aircraft, and just before the landing, Eisenhower said that if there were more than two German divisions in Sicily, the landing could fail. Even Churchill became maddened and wrote: "It will be difficult for me to explain to Marshal Stalin why two German divisions can disrupt the operation. Stalin has 170 German divisions at the front."

    Landing was also carried out for the happiness of the Allies, exactly two German divisions appeared in Sicily. It is terrible to think what could happen if there was an extra German platoon there.

    This is history. But indicative. Distracting from the topic. I want to add a few words about the contract army. It is good when professionals serve in the country's armed forces. The technique is complicated, mastering it is not a trifle ... But it seems to me that the motivation of the fighters is not the last thing. Especially in light of recent events in Ukraine. The contractor serves to get the money. He will not serve for his death under any circumstances. The dead do not need money. Therefore, the contract army will ALWAYS be weaker than the draft. It is suitable for the first strong blow and blitzkrieg. For a long war with possible losses - hardly.

    Russia with its long land borders - the contract army will not help. An army needs at least a million people to have so many contract soldiers - costly. Plus, regular recruitment provides a large number of trained reservists.

    The country's readiness for war is both the military-industrial complex and weapons, and .... conscripts motivated to defend their homeland. Contractors may be in technical positions and instructors.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 1 November 2014 18: 46
      -1
      Quote: Bakht
      and .... conscripts motivated to defend their homeland.


      That is, the Ukrainian version ... Terbats, motivated to the point of insanity, showed that in a modern war, there is very little motivation alone. Need some preparation.
      1. Bakht
        Bakht 1 November 2014 19: 33
        +2
        Quote: Spade
        Quote: Bakht
        and .... conscripts motivated to defend their homeland.


        That is, the Ukrainian version ... Terbats, motivated to the point of insanity, showed that in a modern war, there is very little motivation alone. Need some preparation.

        And who spoke about the terbats? Maybe there were fanatically devoted to the ideas of Ukraine. You can even call motivated. I meant motivated militias. Or are you sure that in the spring there were no people with reeds and tanks from pedestals?

        And then I did say that only motivation? I compared motivated to protect the homeland and fighting for money. Militia and mercenary. It would seem incomparable things. The mercenary will crush with his training. What will happen if the war lasts longer than one campaign?

        The thought is simple. A manpower army (let it be a contract army) is needed. But it cannot be the basis of the defense (not offensive, but defense) of the country. We need a mobilization reserve. And he is given only by regular appeal. Plus, the territory of the country with practically open thousand-kilometer borders. It is the States that can afford the luxury of having a small army (which, incidentally, is not so small). About 250000 people only outside the country. And in the country itself, the National Guard (which, incidentally, has heavy weapons).

        It is not necessary to understand the article for a long time. Take the title and rewrite it a bit. I don't care about the States. If you call the article "Is Russia ready to fight"? And what will be the answer? Several divisions in all directions at once? Far East, South, and now the West. Moreover, the West is very close.

        So the draft army in no way cancels the training. On the contrary, it should be as effective as possible under the guidance of professionals. But without the draft army of Russia it is impossible to survive. If you do not improve the army, you will have to switch to the Swiss or Israeli version - the armed people. And this is already fraught. The authorities will not do this.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 1 November 2014 19: 56
          0
          Quote: Bakht
          I compared motivated to protect the homeland and fighting for money.

          Below I gave an example of two Americans "fighting for money" who deliberately went to the landing with near-zero chances of survival.

          And these are not isolated cases. All Soviet officers, warrant officers and super-conscripts who participated in the wars starting with the Afghan one, according to your classification, were also referred to as "fighting for money" Do you have information confirming the facts of general cowardice among these categories of servicemen?
          1. Bakht
            Bakht 1 November 2014 20: 20
            +2
            Individual soldiers and officers do not make the weather. I fully admit that there are strong fighters. Even for sure. But overall, what were the reasons for curtailing the operation in Somalia? Loss of personnel.

            Your example in soldiers in Afghanistan is not quite understood. For what money did they fight? It is clear that there was a strong propaganda component. Perhaps I don't know the realities of the modern army well. But I know the realities of contracts. It so happened that I constantly and for many years worked with professionals. It is under the contract (civil). And now sometimes I go abroad on a contract basis. Do you know where it is difficult to find contractors? To the Middle East and now to Africa. The amount of the contract to Iraq during the "Desert Storm" exceeded the usual three times. That is to say "payment for fear". There were few people willing.

            I'm not talking about cowardice. I like working with professionals. I am talking about a trend in the development of the state. And his defenses. Contractors will not save the country. Maybe among them there will be some brave fighters. The bulk will refuse. I don’t know what exactly happened on the American frigate URO in the Black Sea. But was there information that the command received dozens of reports? Does this fit with your example of two sergeants?
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 1 November 2014 22: 06
              0
              Quote: Bakht
              But overall, what were the reasons for curtailing the operation in Somalia?

              The cowardice of American politicians.


              Quote: Bakht
              Your example of soldiers in Afghanistan did not quite understand. What money did they fight for?

              With officers, warrant officers and conscripts. Not being conscripts, they were absolutely no different from the American professional military.

              Quote: Bakht
              Contractors will not save the country. Maybe among them there will be some brave fighters. The bulk will refuse

              Sorry, but reality absolutely does not correspond to your thesis. Everything is exactly the opposite - the "bulk" just remains and fights.
              1. Bakht
                Bakht 1 November 2014 23: 33
                +1
                Well, if you are sure, then so be it.
                1. The cowardice of American politicians stems from the weakness of the army. Or vice versa. Somehow it turns out strange. Such brave soldiers and such cowardly politicians. This does not happen.

                2. Officers, conscripts and other specialists fought not only for wages. Given this logic, is any officer of the Soviet Army a contract soldier? Does he receive a salary - does it mean a contractor? You notice that I am not using your term "professional" military on purpose. Because "there is such a profession - to defend the Motherland." Government salaries and contract salaries are slightly different. For example, the contract pays about $ 500 per day (USA). It depends on many factors.
                I'm not against professionals in the army, as you might have noticed. A professional skeleton is needed. I am against a purely professional army. And he explained why. I do not believe that a simple contract soldier will "lay down his belly for the Fatherland."

                3. An example you gave about two sergeants. I brought about the frigate URO. I don’t even want to search for its name. An anecdotal case was in Korea in the 53rd. Sorry for the ancient example. The platoon of marines refused to advance, citing the fact that they were not delivered the morning coffee specified in the contract. It may be a joke, but there is no smoke without fire.

                We seem to be talking about different things. I repeat once again that personally I like working with professionals. Simpler and more reliable. I am against the contract army in its purest form. How will you replenish units without a trained reserve? When the rooster pecks, it will be too late to train. Any country MUST have a trained reserve team. It can only be given by draft and the mass army. A contract army is capable of a first strike. No more.

                PS as a spar in its pure form I leave you to my opinion. He was not going to persuade. Just expressed his opinion.
                Thanks for the discussion.
                Sincerely.
  17. dchegrinec
    dchegrinec 1 November 2014 18: 02
    -1
    America has never been able and will not be able to fight. It is not clear even what this is about. And the point is not in equipping the army, but in the heads of the Americans. As they say, their cause is not just, therefore, there will be no desire to give life. And this is a fact, not a theory.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 1 November 2014 18: 56
      +1
      Quote: dchegrinec
      therefore, there will be no desire to give life. And this is a fact, not a theory.

      This is a theory. Shapkozakitivnaya.

      In fact, Master Sergeant Gary Gordon and Sergeant First Class Randall Shugart. Special forces from "Delta", "fighting for money" (c), who landed at the helicopter shot down in Mogadishu, knowing that they are likely to die. And the dead.
  18. Foxmara
    Foxmara 1 November 2014 20: 19
    +1
    Quote: Dormidont2
    until the Americans are ready, then there will be no war

    I agree with the previous speaker)) - this is a misconception. They prefer to fight with the wrong hands. They intervene only in cases critical for them.
  19. MarKon
    MarKon 1 November 2014 23: 44
    +2
    On the topic of toilet paper
    The Soviet Union was the most educated country because there was no toilet paper in the country.
  20. wanderer_032
    wanderer_032 2 November 2014 16: 52
    +2
    At the present stage, the American Army and its reserve components are staffed with sufficiently educated and internally motivated soldiers, who have their own views on being in the army. (Quote)

    And how can this be logically associated with the title of the article?

    America's Marines Not Ready to Fight (title quote)

    This does not happen. In addition, the US Army pays money for the service, and knowing the mentality of the Americans, we can say with 100% certainty that no one will pay money for nothing in the US.



    In order to regularly and fully receive his salary for the service in the American army, everything that is required of him in accordance with his official duties, according to the contract, will be squeezed out of a man.
    Those who do not correspond to this are simply kicked out of the army in training.
  21. romashki74
    romashki74 2 November 2014 19: 46
    +3
    Quote: Spade
    Quote: gecko
    I can say from my own experience that for 2 years in the army in 90's, that in the arrangement that at the landfills I have never seen toilet paper

    You had shitty commanders. Mine always had toilet paper.

    And in 92 we did not know how to address a colleague - a gentleman or comrade. And the "parade" was an "Afghan woman" at best with collar tabs. An oath even without a wooden machine gun. A guard with an empty horn. And this is in St. Petersburg! I sincerely hope that it’s different now! But we were ready to break at least someone ...
  22. Olegater
    Olegater 3 November 2014 00: 35
    +1
    Dear forum users, read the above article. Tell me whether it is possible to talk about the moral state of the American army when there are no examples on which patriotism can be learned. In their fighting, the Americans, it seems to me, rely on their technical achievements. this leads to the very sad consequences that we see in the east. Bombed everything that is possible and impossible and notice from afar. Operators of combat systems do not really bother, which became after application. And most importantly, no emotions and responsibility after the bombing of shelling and bombing. Maybe I'm mistaken, not serving my homeland, but working for candy wrappers and a green card, the government received soldiers who were not able to actually conduct military operations and be ready to conduct such.
  23. Kelenken
    Kelenken 3 November 2014 09: 06
    0
    Quote: Olegater
    Tell me whether it is possible to talk about the moral state of the American army when there are no examples on what patriotism can be learned.


    The fact that you do not know anything about the examples of THEIR patriotism does not mean at all that there were none. Pat Tillman, for example. Mega-star of American football, earned tens of millions of dollars. Volunteers went to special forces, and died in Afghanistan in 2004.
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD,_%D0%9F



    % D1% 8D% D1% 82
    What, is it not an example?
    Well, or Tim James basketball, similarly, however, the survivor.
    Shoigu recently also, quite officially announced to himself that modern Russian conscripts are no good in terms of physical training, completely yielding to NATO employees. Now what, can we laugh that the Russian army is a complete g ... but? For the logic of the forum false patriots, it turns out that way?
  24. Uriah Mushroom
    Uriah Mushroom 3 November 2014 09: 31
    +1
    God bless Nixon for contracting the state army! It is now only in our favor. By the way, one of the decisive factors in the fall of the Roman Empire was precisely the contract army! A mercenary will never have the same motivation as a protector warrior. What can be considered that the rake of world history fell under the feet of the "Superpower" overseas.
  25. Tribuns
    Tribuns 3 November 2014 16: 37
    +2
    Always in the world, two armies were put above all: the Russian and the German ... The American army is trying to win "purely technically," - without a patriotic beginning ... Disable the Americans' equipment, and the army will fall apart ... A contract mercenary will not breastfeed bunker, will not commit "air ramming" and will not rush into the bayonet at the enemy ... In addition, the moral and strong-willed spirit of the American soldier is thoroughly "tarnished" by the ideas of the LGBT community, "acquaintance" with drugs, alcohol and the disguised racism of whites to blacks. .. So, not everything is glorious in the US army, "defending democratic values ​​around the world" ...
  26. carabiner sks
    carabiner sks 5 November 2014 23: 27
    +1
    Quote: Spade
    And you can without toilet paper? In the summer, you can also wipe the burdock, but in winter? I will tell you the terrible truth: our soldiers also use toilet paper. They just buy it for their money. Together with ice cream and Coca-Cola.

    I honestly do not quite understand this tendency to be proud that our soldier is poorly provided.

    In the summer - a burdock, in the winter - a snowball ... Let's break through!
  27. Campo731
    Campo731 8 November 2014 15: 09
    +1
    Oh well .... Cinema-inflated p_r_i_d_u_r_k_i, imagining themselves lords of the world negative