How long does it take to train an Army?

[Fuchs]

One brigade does not an Army make -- and it probably has no control over the Politicians...Try South Korea in particular but also El Salvador and the Philippines. For that matter, the Viet Namese weren't great, cultural thing -- but they weren't that bad, they were able to beat the North but that's hard to do with no ammo or fuel. Politicians again...

Yet again you let your desire to snipe cause you to display either a lack of knowledge or outright bias.

Iraq (5 years and still not capable enough for troop withdrawals),
Afghanistan (6 years and deteriorating civil war situation),
South Vietnam (clearly lost after about a decade of training by the U.S.),
exile Cubans (Bay of Pigs),
South Korea (which got OVERRUN in 1950 after being equipped & trained by the U.S. for several years)
were not really encouraging examples.
El Salvador's government forces weren't really competent either, the war lasted for twelve years and the standards of behaviour and discipline on the government side were much lesser than desirable.
Philippines? You mean the army of such a big country finally taking control of a tiny island group was an achievement?

Even a infantry-heavy, but competently executed assault of well-trained battalions should have gained 20-30 km ground in SO before the Russian advance guard arrived. There were many flanking opportunities through the forests.

"Lack of knowledge", "bias"?
How about not closing the eyes when I see unfavourable facts?

The U.S. forces have failed to train foreign armies properly in time spans that were longer than the American Civil War or the First World War. That's outright failure.
Such training missions should be expected to train foreign troops in a year up to junior NCO and in two years up to medium-rank officers. That's the speed of training demonstrated by national armies after mobilization.

There's no such excuse like cultural problems. The South Vietnamese had the same culture as the North Vietnamese. It was not on part of the Vietnamese if a cultural problem was prohibiting a successful training.

It's a joke that the occupiers still cannot be satisfied with the training standard of most Iraqi and Afghanistan units after 5-6 years.
Imagine the U.S.Army had been ready to deploy to Europe in 1923 and 1948 for its participation in the European theatre of both world wars!

And yes, I sniped at these training programs because reality and the expectations that some people expressed somewhere else were so far apart.
Some equaled U.S. training with excellent competence. as if the Green Berets somehow handed out silver bullets. The experiences look differently.

The problem is btw quite relevant for the small war topic in general.
There's no way how to build nations during an armed conflict if your military needs a decade or more to properly train that nation's ground forces.

[Ken White]

Iraq (5 years and still not capable enough for troop withdrawals)

No surprise there; I've been saying ten years all along. Why would you think it would be less?

Afghanistan (6 years and deteriorating civil war situation)

Same answer -- I make that about 2012 or 2013.

South Vietnam (clearly lost after about a decade of training by the U.S.)

Lost yes -- but why; the Army and the AF performed well; they just ran out of ammo and fuel. You need to do more homework.

exile Cubans (Bay of Pigs)

Trained by the CIA, not the Armed forces -- they also performed well on a really stupid mission and the promised air support (by the US) was not provided (proving yet again tha politicians are quitters whne the cost goes up). Again, you need to do more research.

South Korea (which got OVERRUN in 1950 after being equipped & trained by the U.S. for several years)

So did the US army get overrun then and there initially. Again, your history's weak. Training pre-1950 was minimal to non-existent. It improved later and if you check out how the South Korean Army did in Viet Nam (quite well) or what it is today, it's as good as any in Asia.

Even a infantry-heavy, but competently executed assault of well-trained battalions should have gained 20-30 km ground in SO before the Russian advance guard arrived. There were many flanking opportunities through the forests.

Don't know, wasn't there -- and I'm rather leery of putting any stock in war second guessers who also haven't been there particularly if they're only fairly well read and ground combat inexpereinced.

"Lack of knowledge", "bias"? How about not closing the eyes when I see unfavorable facts?

Yes to both those things. I have no problem with unfavorable facts; I do have an objection to perceptions based on lack of information and statements made that evade reality or are generally out of context.

The U.S. forces have failed to train foreign armies properly in time spans that were longer than the American Civil War or the First World War. That's outright failure. Such training missions should be expected to train foreign troops in a year up to junior NCO and in two years up to medium-rank officers. That's the speed of training demonstrated by national armies after mobilization.

That is so ludicrous I'm not sure where to start. For openers, you're applying western standards of the late 20th Century to date to several nations who were not and are not today anywhere near that state of development. You're smarter than that.

There's no such excuse like cultural problems. The South Vietnamese had the same culture as the North Vietnamese. It was not on part of the Vietnamese if a cultural problem was prohibiting a successful training.

Not an excuse -- and the South Viet Namese did not and do not have the same culture as the North. Take a look at your internal Ossi situation for an example of cultural drift.

It's a joke that the occupiers still cannot be satisfied with the training standard of most Iraqi and Afghanistan units after 5-6 years.
Imagine the U.S.Army had been ready to deploy to Europe in 1923 and 1948 for its participation in the European theatre of both world wars!

Uh, matter of fact we actually deployed in 1917 and 1942 -- how'd that work out for you? Again, you cannot conflate contemporary western nations with any of those others mentioned.

And yes, I sniped at these training programs because reality and the expectations that some people expressed somewhere else were so far apart. Some equaled U.S. training with excellent competence. as if the Green Berets somehow handed out silver bullets. The experiences look differently.

The 'experiences' aren't over yet.

The problem is btw quite relevant for the small war topic in general. There's no way how to build nations during an armed conflict if your military needs a decade or more to properly train that nation's ground forces.

Depends on where one starts and at what level the raw material happens to be...

How you guys coming with your Police training in Afghanistan? Aren't you the lead on that? Voluntarily picked up the mission in 2003 IIRC. As good as you are, I'm sure that's miles ahead of the training of the Afghan National Army.

Oh wait, I forgot. LINK-- a funny thing happened on the way to the forum. Guess who had to pick up the pieces LINK.

Some things aren't nearly as easy out on the ground as they are sitting at a keyboard -- and that includes advancing 20-30km against even spotty resistance from locals.

[Fuchs]

No surprise there; I've been saying ten years all along. Why would you think it would be less?

Because I'm not used to U.S.forces slowness in such affairs, obviously.

Lost yes -- but why; the Army and the AF performed well; they just ran out of ammo and fuel.

Considering the minimalist logistics of he NVA in that war, I fail to see ana argument.

You need to do more homework.Trained by the CIA, not the Armed forces

OK, keep that out of the list. I do somehow doubt that the CIA trainers who taught the use of A-26 (or maybe B-26 at that time) had no previous military experience, though.

they also performed well on a really stupid mission and the promised air support (by the US) was not provided (proving yet again tha politicians are quitters whne the cost goes up).

"doing well" would have been to break through and switch to guerilla mode. To surrender in few days is not to do well.

Again, you need to do more research.So did the US army get overrun then and there initially. Again, your history's weak. Training pre-1950 was minimal to non-existent.

There was training, and they used U.S.equipment. Period. The U.S.Army embarassing itself in the same theatre doesn't really help.

It improved later and if you check out how the South Korean Army did in Viet Nam (quite well) or what it is today, it's as good as any in Asia.

It did well in killing, I know. A quarter century after the training started. Not impressive. And today's quality - two generations after the initial training - should not be credited to the U.S..
We don't credit the French for today's U.S.Army even though they taught it modern warfare in 1916/1917, do we?
By the way; check what I wrote initially. I wrote

"Well, maybe we should create a thread to identify the armies that were trained by the U.S. military and didn't afterward suck asap?"
Don't ignore the "asap". It clearly indicates that my interest was on the close time period, not decades later.

Yes to both those things. I have no problem with unfavorable facts; I do have an objection to perceptions based on lack of information and statements made that evade reality or are generally out of context.
...
That is so ludicrous I'm not sure where to start. For openers, you're applying western standards of the late 20th Century to date to several nations who were not and are not today anywhere near that state of development.

Actually, I don't. That's the failure of the U.S:Army, not mine.
I expect trained forces to be combat ready and win against forces that are comparable at most.
Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan - not a single time did the foreign-trained state army face an enemy who had significantly better conditions , not a single time were late 20th century Western standards necessary to prevail.
To win is not an invention of late 20th century.

See - your point isn't existing. You''re evading historical reality here.
You failed to tell a single army that did really well after U.S.training. Your examples were wrong, the Korean one being especially terrible.
I listed several armies/countries that failed miserably after U.S.training.

Not an excuse -- and the South Viet Namese did not and do not have the same culture as the North. Take a look at your internal Ossi situation for an example of cultural drift.

Cultural drift? Come on. That's regional difference at most, not a cultural difference that would make one part militarily inferior.
North and South Vietnam were separated for less than 20 years when Saigon fell, Eastern Germany existed for 50 years and failed to create greater cultural differences than exist between North and South Germany.

The 'experiences' aren't over yet.

Actually, lots of failures are over yet.

How you guys coming with your Police training in Afghanistan? Aren't you the lead on that? Voluntarily picked up the mission in 2003 IIRC. As good as you are, I'm sure that's miles ahead of the training of the Afghan National Army.

Decent success for Kabul, afaik. German-controlled regions are pretty good-looking on travel safety maps. But I mentioned the half-hearted political support before. Quantity of policemen is the issue.

Oh wait, I forgot. LINK-- a funny thing happened on the way to the forum. Guess who had to pick up the pieces LINK.

A poor article, with factual errors. The location of German troops is wrong, for example. Most are at Kabul. The description of 41 police officers is badly misleading - much training of Afghan policemen happens outside of Afghanistan with additional personnel.
You might note that Germany has responsibility for a specific region, and that region is almost calm today. I'm not sure - maybe it trained policemen for that region? And to lead an effort doesn't mean to do it alone, it doesn't even mean to have the greatest work share.
Either way - it looks as if the German-trained policemen are somehow working in the calm regions, whereas the U.S.-trained border guards aren't a great success?

Some things aren't nearly as easy out on the ground as they are sitting at a keyboard -- and that includes advancing 20-30km against even spotty resistance from locals.

About 45,000 locals, that's at most 10,000 combattants plus 800 Russian peacekeepers. Most of these combattants were necessarily concentrated at settlements.The region is huge in comparison to its population.
My comfortable keyboard position allows me to know that not some 'spotty resistance' would be the challenge, but the combination of mountains and forests.

Uh, matter of fact we actually deployed in 1917 and 1942 -- how'd that work out for you? Again, you cannot conflate contemporary western nations with any of those others mentioned.

It's not about nations, but about fighting. Any difficulties in overcoming the differences simply mean that the trainers failed - it's their job to overcome difficulties.
If trainers need a decade during wartime to train an army as part of nation-building, then the conclusion should be that this unacceptable.
Get better trainers or don't try to do nation-building in wartime.
This is important.
Get over the fact that this is criticism and see the relevance.
It's not OK to say "we need ten years".
Ten years break the budget. No sane politician would willingly involve his nation in an avoidable ten-year war. That's a no-plan.

Ten years might be OK in peacetime, but it's not OK in wartime.
A track record of inability to train a new foreign army to region-typical combat effectiveness in less than four years needs to have an impact on nation-building related foreign policy planning.

[Rank amateur]

It's not OK to say "we need ten years".
Ten years break the budget. No sane politician would willingly involve his nation in an avoidable ten-year war. That's a no-plan.

Agreed, but throughout history thousands of leaders have been too stupid to realize that there's no such thing as a 100% guaranty that a war will be short. Millions of soldiers have tried their best to clean up the mess.

[50Bravo]

South Vietnam (clearly lost after about a decade of training by the U.S.),

We "trained" the ARVN for more than a decade. Too much of that training was that the Americans would move if you won't because we were not patient. We also taught them to be the US Army when they lacked the economy to pay for such a resource muncher. Having said that, we almost pulled it out after Abe broke the code.

There were ARVN units as good as any NVA or ROK outfit. There were some which were not but fewer as time went on. The NVA that finally crushed the ARVN did so with tanks etc....your talk about the limited logistics of the NVA and the failings of the ARVN is ill informed and incorrect. Towards the end they were boiling field dressings for reuse. Does that sound like a bunch of poorly trained, unmotivated pukes?

The North won because the US lost it's stomach for the fight and not only left but left them holding the bag and an empty one at that.
No air, no bullets, no bandages and no help coming.
Surely a student of the history of the Wehrmacht knows how things go with similar little operational drawbacks. Was that because the Wehrmacht was poorly trained? My step father didn't think so.

I don't know about the other "failures" you mentioned but do have first hand knowledge on this one and you got the result right... not much more.