What we support and defend

[carl]

For comparison purposes, the Army's Troop Basis for 1942 was 2M initially and that was raised in March to 5M. The Army ended the year in December 1942 with 5,397,674. There were at the time 74 Divisions for the two ocean - two front war and a little less than half, about 30 Divisions (a net of of a little over 1.5M soldiers counting Division slices) were nominally combat ready.

That is a big force alright. How many were actually combat ready and deployed in March of 1942? Not many. The point as it has been, is that a large standing well trained army can get you more forces to a spot in a shorter time. I don't see how anything in this paragraph goes counter to that.

On 30 September 1991, the Army's total strength, worldwide, was 725,445. US on the ground troop strength in Kuwait (and Sailors and Marines afloat in the Gulf) as well as the large USAF contingent never exceeded 500K; the Amy provided about 375K (about 140.000 RC) and was only able to do that because of the 'availability' of VII Corps. Had their continued presence been required in Europe, things would have been different. It is noteworthy that the DS/DS troop strengths were about double Operation Iraqi Freedom strengths.

Their continued presence in Europe wasn't required so they could go and things were as they were.

As an aside and FYI, DS/DS was a total aberration in all aspects of combat. It is not a good example to use for hardly anything pertaining to warfare -- or military logistics. That's not a Ken White opinion, it's a stated Army position that few disagree with.

I guess so. But it was a pretty good demonstration of an advantage of having a large well trained standing army available if you want to go some place quick and fight somebody effectively.

You're a master of understatement.

Well at least there is one thing I get right.

Always -- but which things are selected is important.

"Gee, really? Who knew... "

That's an example of what not to do.

You lost me on that one.

As you mentioned above but apparently forgot:Your comparison, even though you mentioned it, really suffers from that major difference. Further, the Troop numbers for Torch are a function of both the requirement and of available lift more than of trained persons available. Conversely DS/DS deliberately went for 'overkill' -- far more Troops than were really deemed necessary simply because VII Corps was available -- it had already been slated for inactivation...

An added factor is training. We do not yet train as well as we could or should -- but in 1990, training was literally light years ahead of WW II (particularly in the early days before the Germans and Japanese undertook to train us more properly).

Different wars, different Armies, different training, different weapons -- Vastly different in all cases. There is really almost no comparison.

That is the point isn't it. There really is almost no comparison between a large standing army that is well equipped and trained vs. a smaller army that is not.

Just as an aside, doesn't total military power include available lift? I should have said at the beginning "a large standing military force" rather than army. My mistake.

That's a statement of the obvious and no one is disputing that -- or at least I certainly do not dispute it. What I'm trying to point out is that while your end point is logical to the point of self evidence, the route you follow or lay out to arrive there is rather illogical and quite flawed in concept.

I don't think so. In any event I got to the right place didn't I? If you get to the right place, maybe the route isn't so flawed.

No one is existing on exact parallels but some congruity would generally be beneficial...

Absolutely, which is why I brought it up.

This is fun.

[Ken White]

Well at least there is one thing I get right.

Note it was not a military assessment...

"Gee, really? Who knew... "

Knowing and not doing could lead others to think someone didn't know...

That is the point isn't it. There really is almost no comparison between a large standing army that is well equipped and trained vs. a smaller army that is not.

Sigh. Yes, that's true and it's also self evident -- yet you continue to try to compare the DS/DS force to an Army seven times its size but less well equipped and trained -- and that well equipped is based on weapon quality, not quantity. You're mixing Watermelons and Kiwi Fruit. It is Fruit Salad -- but it sure ain't good Fruit Salad...

Just as an aside, doesn't total military power include available lift? I should have said at the beginning "a large standing military force" rather than army. My mistake.

"Imprecision in choice of words..."

I don't think so. In any event I got to the right place didn't I?

Of course you don't, you never do. As usual you got to a place that isn't terribly wrong -- that's not the same thing as the right place.

Absolutely, which is why I brought it up.

Eh? I sure missed any congruity in this...

This is fun.

In thy opinion, perhaps. To me it's wasted effort undertaken only to preclude others from adopting your illogical IMO forays to strange ends by providing an alternative view to let them make up their own minds...

[carl]

Note it was not a military assessment...

I'll take what I can get when I can get it.

Knowing and not doing could lead others to think someone didn't know...Sigh.

I guess, but the not doing part is an opinion.

Yes, that's true and it's also self evident -- yet you continue to try to compare the DS/DS force to an Army seven times its size but less well equipped and trained -- and that well equipped is based on weapon quality, not quantity. You're mixing Watermelons and Kiwi Fruit. It is Fruit Salad -- but it sure ain't good Fruit Salad...

You know it never occurred to me that a well crewed Abrams tank was qualitatively better than a much larger number of Grant tanks poorly crewed. It really didn't.

"Imprecision in choice of words..."

Yep, I was imprecise, absolutely.

Of course you don't, you never do. As usual you got to a place that isn't terribly wrong -- that's not the same thing as the right place.

Well actually that is not what you said the first time. You said "That's a statement of the obvious and no one is disputing that -- or at least I certainly do not dispute it. What I'm trying to point out is that while your end point is logical to the point of self evidence, the route you follow or lay out to arrive there is rather illogical and quite flawed in concept." You said my end point was logical to the point of self evidence which I assumed was the right place since you said it was logical to the point of self evidence.

Eh? I sure missed any congruity in this...

I can explain it to you in detail if you like.

In thy opinion, perhaps. To me it's wasted effort undertaken only to preclude others from adopting your illogical IMO forays to strange ends by providing an alternative view to let them make up their own minds...

It is indeed a noble path you follow, but somebody has to walk the hard road.

This is still fun.

[Ken White]

You know it never occurred to me that a well crewed Abrams tank was qualitatively better than a much larger number of Grant tanks poorly crewed. It really didn't.

I'm sure someone in the Army has worked up a figure but I haven't seen it. Aside from Troop quality -- because that's relative to not only training but even more to combat experience -- I recall we once rated an M60 RISE Battalion as equal to three Battalions of M4 Shermans. I suspect an M1 Bn would almost double that. A 1960 Rifle Company had organic or on call the firepower equivalent to 2.5 WW II Rifle Companies and I'd guess that the 1991 variant was probably up to four.

Well actually that is not what you said the first time...You said my end point was logical to the point of self evidence which I assumed was the right place since you said it was logical to the point of self evidence.

Sigh...

Imprecision is a two way street.

I can explain it to you in detail if you like.

Not tonight -- I have a headache...